The Cross-Cultural Coaching Kaleidoscope : A Systems Approach to Coaching Amongst Different Cultural Influences 9781782411093, 9781780490960

Citation preview

The Cross-Cultural Coaching KALEIDOSCOPE

The Professional Coaching Series Series Editor: David A. Lane Other titles in the series The Art of Inspired Living: Coach Yourself with Positive Psychology Sarah Corrie Integrated Experiential Coaching: Becoming an Executive Coach Lloyd Chapman, with contributing author Sunny Stout Rostron Coaching in the Family Owned Business: A Path to Growth edited by Manfusa Shams and David A. Lane Coaching in Education: Getting Better Results for Students, Educators, and Parents edited by Christian van Nieuwerburgh Internal Coaching: The Inside Story Katharine St John-Brooks Business Coaching International: Transforming Individuals and Organizations (Second Edition) Sunny Stout-Rostron Swings and Roundabouts: A Self-Coaching Workbook for Parents and Those Considering Becoming Parents Anna Golawski, Agnes Bamford, and Irvine Gersch Coaching on the Axis: Working with Complexity in Business and Executive Coaching Marc Simon Kahn Supporting the Family Business: A Coaching Practitioner’s Handbook Manfusa Shams and David A. Lane

The Cross-Cultural Coaching KALEIDOSCOPE A Systems Approach to Coaching Amongst Different Cultural Influences

Jennifer Plaister-Ten

First published in 2016 by Karnac Books Ltd 118 Finchley Road London NW3 5HT Copyright © 2016 to Jennifer Plaister-Ten The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope™ is a trademark of Jennifer Plaister-Ten and 10 Consulting Ltd The right of Jennifer Plaister-Ten to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with §§ 77 and 78 of the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A C.I.P. for this book is available from the British Library ISBN-13: 978-1-78049-096-0 Typeset by Medlar Publishing Solutions Pvt Ltd, India Printed in Great Britain www.karnacbooks.com

To Anthony to his, and future generations with love

Conte nts

xi

List of Figures

xiii

About the Author Series Editor’s Foreword

xv

Introduction

xix

Part I The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope MODEL: context, applicability, and use Chapter One The impact of culture in coaching

3

Chapter Two Introducing the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope

13

Chapter Three The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: working with the cultural self

21

vii

viii  

contents

Chapter Four The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: working with the external factors

33

Chapter Five Using the Kaleidoscope

47

Chapter Six The Kaleidoscope in teams

57

Chapter Seven The body of literature informing the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model

67

Part II Building competencies Introduction TO PART II

79

Chapter Eight Building culturally derived awareness and culturally appropriate responsibility

81

Chapter Nine The call for cultural understanding in the coaching relationship

95

Chapter Ten Being a cross-cultural coach

107

Chapter Eleven Towards collective intelligence

119

Chapter Twelve Conclusions and next steps

129

Appendix One A summary of the sample of coaches interviewed

137

c o n t e n t s   

ix

Appendix Two Interview guide for the research study

139

Appendix Three Sample of coaching practitioners, human resource professionals, educators, and students who have explored the use of the Kaleidoscope in practice

141

Appendix Four Reflective feedback sample from coach exploring the use of the Kaleidoscope in practice

143

References

146

INDEX

157

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Some layers of culture

4

Figure 2.1: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: stage one

17

Figure 2.2: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: stage two

18

Figure 2.3: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: stage three

19

Figure 3.1: The cultural self

22

Figure 4.1: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: the external lenses

34

Figure 5.1: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: illustrating the importance of values

54

xi

About the author

Jenny Plaister-Ten, MA (CMP), MAC, FinstLM, is a consultant, coach and facilitator. She has held senior positions for companies such as ICL/Fujitsu and Compaq/HP and has lived and worked in Asia, the USA and the Netherlands. She founded a marketing consultancy in Singapore and is now Director of 10 Consulting Ltd. Jenny is married inter-culturally and has a son who has been raised in three different cultures. She travels widely in her work, and enjoys a multi-cultural lifestyle between the Netherlands and the UK.

xiii

Series Editor’s Forewor d

For some considerable time I have wanted to bring to our readers an approach to coaching that reflected the cross-cultural world of practice that we inhabit. In keeping with the approach of this series, whatever we published would need to be practical but underpinned by a significant research base. I am delighted to have been able to commission Jenny Plaister-Ten to produce a book based on her research and practice in the field of coaching within a cross-cultural framework. She draws upon her research and practice, which she continuously updates in the light of developments in the field. She has created in The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope, a thoughtful, practical, and well-researched account. However, it is also a deeply personal story, as she relates her own experiences as formative in her mistakes and successes. As the author asserts, the book is aimed not just at coaches but at educators, students, and global leaders. The latter, in particular, will benefit by seeing their world through the lens that the author offers. She quotes Scott (2002, p. 180) who refers to a comment made by Joseph Pine, co-author of The Experience Economy (Pine & Gilmore, 2011): “The experience of being understood, versus interpreted, is so compelling you xv

xvi  

s e r i e s e d i to r ’ s f o r e w o r d

can charge admission.” This fully accords with my own experience of working across the globe and in the intimacy of the coaching encounter. It is so rare to be present with someone who fully listens. If it does happen, the impact can be transformational in itself. However, this book takes us way beyond good listening and intercultural awareness. It takes a systems approach that enables us, as readers, to gain a sense of the range of impactful factors. Jenny PlaisterTen offers the concept of the cultural self as a unifying perspective for our reflections. Culture, in her view, is not separate from our daily lives, it is not about being aware and acquiring some cultural competence; it is rather about seeing how it impacts on our life. The challenge that this presents to those with a goal oriented Western mindset is faced and addressed. She requires us to rethink our positions in terms of the values we hold and the perspectives we bring, as psychological, managerial, and, yes, as coaching professionals. There is no panacea of a multicultural coaching approach, but there are lenses through which we can seek to view ourselves and the world we construct. The approach adopted, which incorporates a social constructivist frame while exploring the complexity of our environment, enables us to see how we come to ascribe particular meanings to events. We overlook, at our peril, that different cultures express their values in varied ways which impact on their decisions and hence working practices. Studying the cultural dimensions of our practices is not separate from understanding our values and the values in the systems we inhabit. We internalise those values and cultures and by exploring the meanings our clients attribute to events, we have, as the author contends, a point of entry into a dialogue. One of the key challenges that Jenny Plaister-Ten confronts is the way in which the globalisation debate has become a justification for the idea that there can be global leadership competencies. She takes the view that leadership is essentially contextual and multi-factored, to the extent that there is a danger of reducing leadership to a set of competences. In doing so Jenny contends that we inhibit the opportunity for creativity and innovation. This book is a call to the coaching profession to accept and work with influences of culture upon the individual or organisation. However, Plaister-Ten is not suggesting that this provides a sole focus for

s e r i e s e d i to r ’ s f o r e w o r d   

xvii

our work. True to the traditions within coaching, it is the client that leads the way. Yet, understanding the impact of culture on personal identity and embedding transcultural considerations into the core training curriculum for the coaching profession is, in her view, vital and to some extent yet to be recognised. Without this embedding, how do we break down barriers in society and address oppression? Jenny calls upon us to incorporate a higher purpose in our work, to raise “the collective consciousness towards respecting and embracing difference”. I think it was worth the wait to find the right book to bring to our readers. In Jenny Plaister-Ten we have found a committed practitioner and researcher. I am grateful to her for the work she has done to bring this project to fruition, and delighted to recommend it to you as the latest edition to our series. Series Editor Professor David A. Lane Professional Development Foundation

Introduction

Culture is a lens through which to view a situation. The aim of this book is to increase attention to this lens. Through raising culturally derived awareness and facilitating culturally appropriate responsibility in the coaching relationship, we can increase intercultural understanding. The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model is a tool with which to accomplish this. It is hoped that this will in turn eradicate ill-feeling towards others who are different and of whom we may have little or no experience. In a small way, my wish is that this book will contribute towards a better world for future generations. This book is for coaching and mentoring practitioners, educators, and students wishing to practise interculturally, and those aspiring to coach internationally. It is also for global leaders who have recognised the benefits of a coaching approach to leading in multicultural organisations. “Cross-cultural coaching” is used as a generic term for a coach working within multicultural environments, organisations, or teams. “Global executive coaching” is used to describe a coach working with a global leader. “Global executive coach/team facilitator” is used to describe someone who works to transform the effectiveness of a global or remote team. I have used the terms xix

xx  

i n t r o d u ct i o n

“the East” and “the West” for ease of explanation, rather than to polarise the world. *  *  * When I tell people of my passion in the intercultural sphere I receive blank looks. I live in a small village in Oxfordshire, UK, and upon first glance must appear like any other white middle class, middle-aged woman. I look the same, speak the same, and behave in the same way as the majority of my fellow citizens. Yet I constantly feel that I am hiding my “whole self” and all of my life experiences—experiences that are at the core of who I am today. This book, for me, on a personal level, is therefore a vehicle of self-expression, supremely embodied in a quotation from Mohandas K. Gandhi: “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stifled. I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” I do not want to be stifled by the perceptions and expectations of others and never have. Yet, all too often as human beings we know very well what we don’t want and less what we do want. It is my belief that most of us do want to be understood. Yet, it is very difficult to appreciate experiences, thoughts, and feelings that are not our own. Scott quotes Joseph Pine, co-author of The Experience Economy: “The experience of being understood, versus interpreted, is so compelling you can charge admission.” As Scott further suggests, “There is a universal longing to be known, to be understood. Unfortunately, the experience is rare” (2002, p. 180). As a human race, we continue to make snap judgements about the behaviour of others. Race riots and social unrest persists, with some extremist groups committing atrocities over territory and ideology. Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel has identified fanaticism, or cultural hatred, as a “source of danger; the gravest of all” (2012, p. 60). I feel misunderstood—and I live in my own country. Imagine how immigrants and expatriates feel. Imagine how the children of parents from multicultural backgrounds feel. Imagine the challenges of working in organisations populated by people from multiple ethnicities. *  *  * This book is divided into two parts. In Part I, I first introduce the reader to the conditions inherent within the globalised nature of our world

i n t r o d u ct i o n   

xxi

today, and explore the impact for coaches who are coaching global leaders. The development of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model began life as a research question around understanding and this is introduced in Chapter Two. The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope enables the coach to take a systems perspective. This approach incorporates the external factors influencing thoughts, emotions, and behaviours, whilst honouring the impact of culture on the individual self, a concept known as the cultural self, which is explored in Chapter Three. Chapter Three therefore describes how culture affects our perceptions, thoughts, judgements, and emotions; how it influences our choices and decisions, and shapes our actions, interactions and behaviour. *  *  * This book differs from other studies of culture that tend to view culture as a collective concept: something that a group of people have. It also differs from much of the current body of knowledge in the coaching field. So far there has been a tendency to focus on executive coaching for those operating in a global environment, but without considering how and why our culture impacts us in our daily lives and in our working practices. Or, perhaps more importantly still, if or how culture impacts the issue being presented for coaching. *  *  * Culture is a complex concept. It is likely that we will not understand the impact of our own culture unless we have taken time out of it, or have studied it. This book therefore aims to move beyond studies of culture that draw on national characteristics, cultural dimensions, orientations, or competencies, and proposes that our culture has individual and distinct meanings for each and every one of us. Western coaching theories that focus on the personality and goaloriented coaching practices may be undermining the values of some cultures. It is suggested, therefore, that it is incumbent upon coaching practitioners to become adept at raising awareness to cultural influences—both their own and their coachee’s. This may necessitate the reframing of psychological constructs often thought to hold universal meaning, such as responsibility or trust. I therefore suggest that a universal approach to coaching is inappropriate. Identifying cultural norms, values and beliefs, and the impact of the social environment reflects a social constructivist approach, originally

xxii  

i n t r o d u ct i o n

postulated by Vygotsky (1962). A social constructivist approach takes into account the individual meanings that a person ascribes to a particular situation and within a particular context. This book emanates from that perspective but further proposes that owing to the heterogeneous nature of the cross-cultural world, it is necessary to be mindful that cultures change. Who creates the change? People, either singularly or collectively through societies and institutions. People change as cultures change; the external influences on the internal mindset evolve, and vice-versa, and the entire system or systems change. Culture should be viewed dynamically. It is not static. The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model is therefore a dynamic model that illustrates the complexity and “blurredness” of many interactions across and within cultures. It is hoped that the striking visual imagery of the model and metaphor of the Kaleidoscope may serve the reader in contemplating the external factors that impact on the cultural self and the inherent complexity within which we are engaged to coach. The complexities of culture and shifting cultural influences across the lifespan, led me to contemplate the Kaleidoscope model as if it were an “antenna” to the cultural issues that may be inherent within a coaching engagement. This led to an approach to coaching that takes historic, economic, political, social, environmental, and educational factors into account as well as the individual in the context of his immediate relationships. This systems approach is represented through the lenses of the Kaleidoscope model and I invite you to hold this image in your mind as you read this book; but to hold this “lightly”. These concepts are explained more fully in Chapter Four. Its applications have grown from a simple awareness-raising tool at an individual level, detailed in Chapter Five, to a team-building, team-effectiveness and teamtransformational tool, as explored in Chapter Six. A summary of the literature review that led to the creation of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope is provided in Chapter Seven. Historically, ethnographies have been conducted by cultural and social anthropologists, and have contributed to the perspective that culture is bequeathed from generation to generation in the form of habits, beliefs, norms, values, and behaviours. Attempts to describe cultural tendencies have been through large-scale quantitative studies of national values. Or, as a means to manage differences, based upon different values in the workplace. While these studies have contributed positively to understandings of cultural norms, sadly, some have

i n t r o d u ct i o n   

xxiii

contributed negatively to generalisations about individuals within groups. This has led to what has become known as sophisticated stereotyping (Osland et al., 2000). A fact that is perhaps overlooked is that studies of cultural dimensions emanate from and converge with studies of values and value systems. An examination of values is often a good place to start in coaching. Still, it seems that the internalisation of culture and the corresponding meanings attributed by individuals to cultural values and beliefs is the point of enquiry at which coaches can add most value. However, coaches who have been trained to follow Western models of coaching could have overlooked the fact that different cultures place different importance upon different values and this therefore impacts their decisions and working practices. The coaching profession was first alerted to the need to incorporate a cultural perspective into the coaching engagement by Rosinski (2003), who built on the dimensions approach with a cultural orientations framework. Since then, others—including Law et al. (2007), Law (2011, 2013), Moral and Abbott (2009), Stout-Rostron (2009), the Association for Coaching and Passmore (2009), and Shams and Lane (2011)— have posited a cultural perspective in coaching. At times, culture becomes incorporated into the diversity argument, which in my view is a reductionist approach in an attempt to “manage it”. Furthermore, the current impetus of globalisation somehow seems to have morphed into the need for global leadership competencies (Goldsmith et al., 2003; Mendenhall et al., 2013; Gundling et al., 2011). Significantly, the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), one of the first studies of differences in leadership across nations, found that leadership is essentially contextual, influenced by many factors, including the organisation culture. Coaching across multiple cultures is now, more than ever, acknowledged as a leadership style that improves business effectiveness and personal relationships. However, it would seem that the culture concept is still in danger of being reduced to a competency rather than maximising the opportunity for creativity and innovation through diverse perspectives. *  *  * Part II of this book explores the topics introduced in the first part in more depth. Ways of working to raise culturally derived awareness and the facilitation of culturally appropriate responsibility are explored

xxiv  

i n t r o d u ct i o n

more fully in Chapter Eight. It further suggests that it is sometimes necessary to “unlearn” those culturally embedded patterns that may be inappropriate given a change of context. The research question that led to the key findings (derived as part of my master’s degree in coaching and mentoring practice) was: “Is it preferable, even necessary, for a coach to have an understanding of a client from a different worldview?” The answer to this research question, on face value, must surely be a resounding “yes”. To draw sweeping conclusions may further perpetuate stereotyping, one of the social ills of our time. Yet research from the field of neuroscience suggests that trust and empathy are derived from feelings of allegiance to the same social group (Rock & Page, 2009). In simplistic terms, we are wired to like and trust those who are similar to us and fear those who are not. As coaches, we must “seek first to understand”, a skill (Covey, 1992) attributed to deep listening. Yet how can we even begin to understand the complexity of cultural aspects if they are not even in our awareness, not in our life experiences? Chapter Nine discusses the complexities inherent within seeking “understanding”. Amongst the key findings was the need for coaches to acknowledge that it is important to first bring the nuances of culture to awareness before the coaching work can begin. It is therefore of paramount importance that coaches practising interculturally have a level of self-awareness about the influence of their own culture upon the coaching issue. These issues, along with an exploration of the backgrounds, qualities, and aptitudes of those coaches in the research sample who were practising interculturally are discussed in Chapter Ten. It is hoped that this chapter will provide some guidance for those coaches wishing to develop themselves in the global arena. *  *  * This book calls for the coaching profession to accommodate the influences of culture upon the individual or group dynamic. Yet there is one important caveat. It is not my suggestion that coaching practitioners lead with culture, or focus simply on culture. As with all coaching engagements, the coachee leads the way. Yet, if there is anything that is culturally imbibed within the coaching issue or problem, how would we know if we have not been trained or, as a minimum, worked on our own self-awareness in this regard. This distinction is important. Lago (2011) highlights the impact of culture upon personal identity and

i n t r o d u ct i o n   

xxv

consequently calls for the counselling profession to embed transcultural considerations into the core training curriculum for therapists. To my knowledge, there has been no such call from the coaching profession. *  *  * Writing this book took me on a journey. It gave me privileged insight into the lives of highly experienced professional coaches practising in twenty-seven countries. Collectively they had coached forty-three different nationalities. This represented more than 20,000 coaching hours across all the continents of the world (see Appendix One). I have selected some quotations from the research conducted in 2008 to support key points throughout the book (see Appendix Two for the interview questions). I remain indebted to the participants for their contributions. Since 2011 I have worked with executive coaches, executive coaching students, educators, MBA students, human resource (HR) practitioners, and coaching educators in multicultural environments (see Appendix Three) who have explored the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model and its applicability to their practice. This approach drew upon reflective feedback (see Appendix Four) that contributed to further iterations of the Kaleidoscope model. I am equally indebted to them. This book also draws on my experiences as a practitioner with an international business background, having lived and worked in the USA, Asia-Pacific and mainland Europe. As an international marketer for most of my career, I have become a “people watcher”. I have learned of the perils of a “one size fits all” approach to meeting the different requirements, beliefs, values, and aspirations of vastly differing marketplaces, not to mention whole societies and individuals within them. I also relate some of my personal narratives to my intercultural marriage, within which I have possibly learned the most about my own enduring cultural beliefs and norms. I draw on my experiences of having raised a child in three different cultures, with a multicultural education and lifestyle. I hope that my stories of stumbling and falling on my intercultural journeys are useful to your learning. In our intercultural dealings we unwittingly make mistakes. Mistakes require reflection and looking at ourselves first and foremost. Learning from mistakes requires humility and it is my belief that humility is a key tool when operating across cultures. *  *  *

xxvi  

i n t r o d u ct i o n

Finally, as illuminated in Chapter Eleven, there appears to be a “higher purpose” amongst those practising interculturally: a desire to contribute to the greater good. The coaches interviewed were living in accordance with their own values and held aspirations to break down social injustices and fear of difference. A key factor for future generations of coaches to consider is this: as intercultural coaches, can we reflect a higher purpose? How can we work together to break down barriers of social stereotyping, bigotry, and oppression, and to promote the values of integration and harmony, without losing our own individual sense of self? Through an increase in intercultural understanding can we pursue this altruistic purpose and contribute to raising the collective consciousness towards respecting and embracing difference? With this higher purpose we will hopefully create new systems, new global neural pathways. Key contemplations are therefore offered throughout the book. This is an invitation to you the reader to be reflexive as you read. There is no single reality, no reductionist approach, merely a series of lenses from which to view a situation and an attempt to draw it all together by means of the Cross-Cultural Coaching Kaleidoscope. That said, the book attempts to provide signposts by means of key concepts such as “working with paradox”. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my own belief that our cultural heritage informs almost all of our decisions, yet at the same time must be held “lightly” as worldviews evolve to accommodate different perspectives. If we must talk about competencies, the ability to operate paradoxically is therefore a key competency of the twenty-first-century coach.

Part I The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope MODEL: context, applicability, and use

Chapter One

The impact of culture in coaching

This chapter focuses on: • coaching in a globalised context: changing the way we live and work and the impact on our cultural values and beliefs • the need for a paradigm shift in approaches to global leadership that embeds intercultural awareness and builds global mindsets • coaching within a complex adaptive system (CAS).

What is culture? Globalisation affects cultures and cultures shape globalisation.1 But culture is a complex concept with varying definitions. Consequently, it has been difficult for the coaching profession to define, with terms such as cross-cultural coaching, intercultural coaching, or global executive coaching often used interchangeably. The word “culture” originates from the Latin verb colere: to cultivate the soil. However, the German word Kultur means education, according to Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952, p. 21). This potentially indicates the origins of the concept of culture as learned, the cultivation of learning. Hall, on the other hand, suggests 3

4  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Figure 1.1: Some layers of culture. that “culture is acquired”, not taught (1959, p. 37). Such is the diverse and often conflicting nature of the culture debate. Yet these binary distinctions, on a par with the nature/nurture debate, may appear to be over-simplistic when we look at the factors that can influence those of us who live and work in multicultural societies today. All too often, culture is viewed solely as national culture. Yet the culture concept is far more complex, with many layers of “subculture” that people have or belong to, each with its own unique identity. The Figure 1.1 above shows some of them.

A multicultural world I met my husband in Singapore; my son was born there. My husband is from Suriname with African, Chinese, and Dutch heritage. Before the age of seven my son had lived in three different countries and had exposure to a multitude of cultures. This continued as we educated him multilingually and multiculturally. My son is perhaps representative of a new generation of children of expatriates or migrants who will later take their place in the workforce, bringing with them a rich tapestry of

t h e i mpa ct o f c u lt u r e i n c oac h i n g   

5

cultural influences. These influences will no doubt affect the way he views the world and will impact his interactions with people. More people now live outside their home countries than ever before. According to the United Nations Population Fund website, in 2015, 244 million people, or 3.3 per cent of the world’s population, lived outside their country of origin. This was an increase from 232 million people in 2013, amounting to 3.2 per cent of the world’s population. Furthermore, many more move around inside their home countries, particularly in China and India where rural workers are relocating to the major industrialised cities such as Shanghai and Mumbai. In 2009, one in six people of the population of England and Wales (9.1 million) was estimated to be of Non-White British origin, according to a statistical bulletin from the Office of National Statistics (ONS, 2011). This represented an increase from 6.6 million in 2001. Also in 2009, the mixed-race population rose to almost a million (986,600)—from 672,000 in 2001, representing an increase of nearly 50%. According to a Guardian news report (2011), an ONS statistician said this was due to the fact that “the population is mixing up more”. Furthermore, a BBC (2012b) news report suggested that London is the first region where “White British” people are a minority. It further reported that the number of foreignborn residents in England and Wales had risen by nearly three million over the period 2001 to 2011. This meant that around one in eight, or 13% of the population were born outside the UK. Oxford University Migration Observatory (2015) has further suggested that the migrant population of England alone has increased by 565,000 since 2011; this is based on labour force data and is an update to the 2011 census. These trends contribute to an increase in multicultural societies characterised by mixed marriages, to bi-cultural offspring, and to multicultural workplaces. According to a report in the New York Times (2012), the 2012 United States Census Bureau reported that for the first time in the history of the USA, white babies were outnumbered by non-white. “Minorities”— including Hispanic, Black, Asian, and multiracial people—reached over fifty per cent of the population. This demographic shift means that the USA, in true capitalist style, is treating “diversity as an industry”, as reported by The Week (2012a). Changes in political policies and marketing campaigns are two repercussions of such demographic shifts, leaving the debate wide open to the possibility of attitude changes and shifts in perspective. To add to these demographic shifts, borders that

6  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

have historically restricted both population movements and international trade are breaking down. Not only are there increases in the flow of labour, but the large-scale interactions of capital and goods across global supply chains. Companies have learned to work across a multitude of markets with differing regulatory controls, government influence, and consumer behaviours. According to Friedman, more people are interconnected, “able to collaborate and compete in real-time with other people on different kinds of work from different corners of the planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the history of the world” (2005, p. 8). One of the impacts of the interconnectedness of today’s world is that we are prone to feeling the effects of actions taken by others in other parts of the world. The “butterfly effect” was felt in full force during the 2008 financial crisis when the high-risk structure of financial systems and, in particular, sub-prime mortgages in the USA created problems for financial markets and economies worldwide. Companies, governments, and citizens exist in complex interconnected systems creating the potential for both global collaboration and competition. Yet, despite all this, cultural norms, reactions, and expectations persist. Countries such as India and China, who have traditionally supplied cheap goods to developed economies, are and will continue to be a major force. McKinsey and Company (Bisson et al., 2010) suggest that Western economies will have a lower share of global GDP (gross domestic product) in 2050 than they had in 1700, representing a tipping point in economic power from the West to the East. This would mark a return to Asia’s pre-1700 “glory” days when it comprised two-thirds of the global economy (Kohli et al., 2012). McKinsey also points out that the number of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) companies on the Fortune 500 has more than doubled in the past four years. These shifts will have a major impact on the world as more and more people enjoy a spending capacity that they have not previously had. It also represents a huge opportunity to capture new customers from the world’s most populous countries. Moreover, these countries are moving beyond being “copycat” suppliers of low-cost goods and out-sourced manufacturing. They are innovating. Innovations such as China’s high-speed trains and the Tata group’s $2,200 car will sooner or later have an impact on the world market. At the moment, sceptics consider that the quality of goods does not and will not meet the stringent quality standards of more advanced markets. However, this is changing.

t h e i mpa ct o f c u lt u r e i n c oac h i n g   

7

Global business landscape Some countries in the West are experiencing flat growth, national debts of gargantuan proportions (at the time of writing the UK’s national debt has risen to one trillion pounds sterling for the first time), civil unrest, and austerity measures. Leaders face the most difficult of times, not least of which is the need to balance the short-term pressures of delivering revenue and profit targets with the need for long-term growth and sustainability. Traditionally, one of the most expedient ways of driving business growth has been by means of a merger or an acquisition. Expedient, yet risky. A report commissioned by KPMG (2009) found that the issues it had identified in its 1999 survey still prevailed. Namely, that companies were failing to address the “softer” issues that impacted cross-border deals: specifically in the management of cultural issues. The KPMG 1999 survey found that eighty-three per cent of mergers were found to be unsuccessful, producing little business benefit in terms of shareholder value. The resolution of cultural issues was found to be a key success factor. Deals were found to be twenty-six per cent more likely to succeed if cultural issues were addressed early on in the process. The KLM/Air France merger has been hailed as one of the more successful of our times, despite the analyst projections citing cultural differences as a pitfall. According to Renaud (2009) one of the key success factors was in addressing the intercultural issues early on, through the appointment of intercultural consultants and coaches to guide the process. *  *  * The Office for National Statistics (2013) reported that foreign investors owned more than half of UK quoted companies, an increase from just over thirty per cent in 1998 and just over forty per cent in 2010. Today, four of the largest six energy companies in the UK have received foreign investment. For example, the China Investment Corporation (CIC) acquired an almost nine per cent stake in Thames Water in 2012, according to The Week (2012b). The CIC is just one of several sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) investing in business and infrastructure in Britain, causing general speculation and debate about the prudence of selling national assets. The news report goes on to say that, besides China, other SWFs include funds estimated at five trillion US dollars from Saudi Arabia, Norway, and the United Arab Emirates. According to research from The Grocer (2012) and the research firm Nielsen, just forty-four of the largest

8  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

grocery brands in the UK are British-owned. For example, the BBC (2012a) reported that Shanghai-based Bright Foods Company bought sixty per cent of Northamptonshire-based Weetabix for £1.2 billion, giving both entities increased global reach. This is bad news for people who believe in home grown enterprise, but good news for the generation of new jobs. The BBC (2014b) reported that according to figures from UK Trade & Investment, in one year, 66,000 jobs had been created in the UK by foreign businesses—from Europe, the Americas and Asia. Furthermore, the Centre for Economic Performance and the London School of Economics (2015) suggest that UK productivity (GDP per hour) is around seventeen per cent below the G7 average. British productivity has fallen since the Great Recession of 2008. Moreover, McKinsey (2015) research findings suggest that ethnically diverse companies are thirty-five per cent more likely to outperform, compared against their industry average ratings. These findings should all represent good news for multicultural organisations, communities, and societies. Yet it seems that diversity is often reduced to a tick box competency, to a “nice to have”, or to positive discrimination. In the workplace, relatively little appears to be known about the benefits of increased productivity amongst diverse teams. *  *  * In the context of international mergers and acquisitions, culture is often referred to as organisational culture. My own experience of surviving several mergers and acquisitions, including one “backwards integration” with Nokia/Erikson in Finland/Sweden, is that whichever entity is perceived by senior management to have the quickest route to value, is the culture that prevails. So when ICL bought the personal computer division of Nokia, Nokia was thought to have the brightest products, people, and potential; it quickly became the dominant culture at the expense of ICL’s own culture. Smart companies think about how to integrate both cultures and leverage the strengths of the combined organisations.

The impact upon global leadership Technological advances, thanks to the internet and mobile solutions, make it easier to both collaborate and compete across borders in

t h e i mpa ct o f c u lt u r e i n c oac h i n g   

9

virtual teams. However, operating globally, not to mention virtually, demands an understanding that there are culturally bound approaches to time, authority, communication styles, autonomy, respect for processes, adherence to rules, the importance of relationship building, allegiance to individual or collective goals, to name but a few. There are huge risks to business if they fail to understand and respect these differences. This is evident at the boundary of compliance, ethics, and culture. For example, The BBC (2015) reported that Goodyear was fined sixteen million US dollars by the Securities’ and Exchange Commission (SEC) for failing to stop bribery at its Kenya and Angola operations. Companies who fail to comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) can find themselves with hefty fines and law suits, jail sentences, and mass dismissals, all pointing to the need for increased due diligence in accounting practices. However, they also point to the need to understand “how things are done around here”. Bribery is systemic in some countries. Furthermore, cultural relativism suggests that what is right or wrong is culture-specific. What is wrong to someone from “the West” may be acceptable to someone from “the East” and vice-versa. Take the issue of human rights in China, for example. Therefore, effective global leaders not only need to increase compliancy procedures, but to take an ethical stance in ensuring that a zero tolerance to corrupt business dealings is communicated to all employees and members of the supply chain, and acted upon. We may take a lead from Delphi Automotive. It has been voted one of the world’s most ethical companies by the Ethisphere Institute (2015). It has built a corporate culture of both ethics and compliance. The Government of Sweden has also provided us with an example of an ethical business decision. It has stopped an arms deal with Saudi Arabia on the basis of ethical differences. This move comes at a huge financial cost. According to a news report by Tharoor (2015) cited in The Independent newspaper, military equipment deals to Saudi Arabia from Sweden were worth around thirty-nine million US dollars in 2014. Thus it may be seen that ethical dealings may result in a loss of business and slower results in the short term. But it may also result in employee fraud or threats of extortion being exposed, and corporate social responsi­ bility for the greater good. According to the Harvard Business Review (2015), measuring the return on character may be one way to ensure that leaders perform at the optimum level in their ethical dealings. A new study from KRW

10  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

International (2009) found that those CEOs whose employees ranked them high in the four character traits of integrity, responsibility, forgiveness, and compassion, had an average return on assets nearly five times as much as those with low character ratings. Nevertheless, whilst the study claimed that these moral principles were universally held, the research was only carried out in the US. Furthermore, it does not explore the meanings behind these moral principles. As we will see later in this book, constructs such as responsibility can vary widely across cultures. Furthermore, the study rather avoids the impact of context, which could change the response or decision from one day to the next. The interface between culture, ethics, and compliance could perhaps provide some context to this enquiry. *  *  * Even as far back as 1992, Schein stated, “cultural understanding is desirable for all of us but it is essential for leaders if they are to lead” (1992, p. 15). Leaders today must be globally minded: mindful of developing competencies within a changing, highly complex world. A PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) report called for the creation of more flexible, adaptable, and creative teams that are culturally diverse and globally mobile. Yet, Abbott et al. (2006) explain that failures by expatriates to acculturate are largely due to the inability to adapt to a new culture. This has personal, professional, and financial implications. A coaching approach can help to address all of these issues. Moreover, differing work practices get muddled with cultural values and beliefs. Differing work practices, such as the need to socialise before a meeting or not, can be learned. Standing in another’s shoes and looking at the situation through the lens of the host country’s norms and customs certainly can help. However, it is the values and beliefs that drive them that form the point of enquiry at which global leaders, global leadership consultancies, coaches, and trainers can have the most impact. Leaders today face a turbulent and changing landscape. Leaders need to develop talent through creativity and innovation. Yet understanding of how people from different cultures function, yet alone flourish, lags way behind. This is remarkable given the scenarios discussed in this chapter. This calls for a paradigm shift in leadership, and the development of new skills and flexible global mindsets.

t h e i mpa ct o f c u lt u r e i n c oac h i n g   

11

The call for a global mindset In order to deal with the complexities of systems, changes in mindsets are required: changes in the mindsets of leaders, their teams, and the people coaching them. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) calls for organisations to develop globally minded leaders, yet there is a lack of clarity about what this entails. Gundling et al. (2011) suggest that leaders need to ask themselves different questions at a strategic level to incorporate considerations such as “shifts in market focus”, “competitive set”, “what and from where are the major sources of innovation?”, and “who are the appropriate global leaders to model?”. Questions such as these could result in an entire refocusing of a corporation along with the consequent risks and rewards of doing so. Ashridge (2006) suggest that there a host of social, political, and environmental issues that impact an organisation that leaders need to consider so that they can make better context-based decisions in the face of a complex world. Focus group research conducted by Wilson (2012) into coaching with a global mindset suggested that the majority of coaches in the focus groups perceived global mindedness from within the cultural perspective of the global environment, highlighting “cosmopolitanism” as an underlying dimension to the construct (Levy et al., 2007). Relatively fewer perceived it as the development of a complex strategic mindset. If coaching is conducted at the heart of corporate strategy then it must surely follow that a global executive coach’s questions must be focused accordingly to reflect the multifaceted challenges of international business. Rosinski suggests an approach that “calls upon multiple interconnected perspectives to facilitate the unleashing of human potential” (2010, p. xiv). Given the changes highlighted, there is perhaps a need to better respond to the dynamics of global business. Effective global executives influence multicultural systems (individual, divisional, corporate, and international). They are required to generate and sustain business opportunities and leadership in the face of such complexities. An understanding of the context, along with its inherent complexity, must surely assist with this navigation. Yet how many senior leaders have the time to engage in this journey of exploration? It is therefore incumbent on the coach to be able to “hold the space” for the complexities facing global leaders. The CrossCultural Kaleidoscope is a tool to help them do this. The ability to raise

12  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

awareness to global external factors that influence values and perceptions, and drive decisions is, or must shortly become, a core competency for global executive coaches.

Operating within a complex adaptive system Global executive coaching may be seen as a conversation with a leader that takes place within the complexity of a multinational corporation—a complex adaptive system (CAS). A CAS has multiple “agents” or networks; it interacts, learns, changes, and adapts to its environment creating new boundaries and innovation (Holland, 2006). According to Holland, adaptation to a CAS is key for leaders. Captains of industry need to find “lever points” or key areas of influence in the corporate system. Once found, they seek to build upon established techniques and develop new ways of doing things. Global executive coaches can facilitate this by asking the incisive questions necessary to identify not only cross-cultural but cross-functional patterns and to cut through the complexity. It could be that interconnectedness will provide a way forward. Potentially, we no longer live in a world of either/or, but of both/and: a world where paradox is normal and where knowledge is emergent. Working closely with global stakeholders will necessitate having to know ourselves—and our cultural values—in order to be able to identify what to carry forward and what to leave behind. This is difficult to do and we have few tools to help us to do this. As Hofstede (2001, p. 18) says, “identifying culture-related behaviour is difficult.” The following chapters further discuss the need to explore cultural values and beliefs as a route to intercultural effectiveness. This is in the context of a systems approach to intercultural practice: the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model.

Note 1. Theme for Society of Intercultural Education, Training and Research (Sietar) 2008 Conference, held in Granada, Spain.

Chapter T wo

Introducing the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope

This chapter focuses on: • an overview of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model • a systems approach to coaching practice • the three stages of the model.

An overview of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model was originally designed as part of a Master’s degree in Coaching and Mentoring Practice (PlaisterTen, 2008). Interviews were conducted with highly experienced professional coaches, practising in twenty-seven countries, who had collectively coached forty-three different nationalities and represented more than 20,000 coaching hours across all the continents of the world (see Appendix One). The model originated from the stories that the research participants were sharing about their experiences of coaching in a multicultural context. As I followed the stories, an image of a kaleidoscope 13

14  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

kept popping into my mind: rich colours, complex, constantly moving, and dynamic. Following this, a sample of intercultural coaches, HR (human resources) practitioners, students, and educators has been exploring its use in practice (see Appendix Three). From 2011, the model was further developed following a reflective feedback process (see Appendix Four) from those using the model in coaching practice. It has now evolved and been made available to a wider audience. During the interviewing process (see Appendix Two) I would constantly visualise a kaleidoscope. This imagery placed the global leader, and consequently his coach, in an environment that is dynamic, with multiple influences interweaving and interchanging from the external environment—thus providing the context. Yet, it was the internal cultural self that made meaning of all these influences. The dilemma I faced was how best to represent those aspects affecting cultural value systems; in other words, a collective orientation with that of an individual orientation. I followed the “stories” of the research participants. Eventually, themes emerged in the categories of history/arts, economic, political, education, legal, religious/spiritual, community (including organisation culture)/family, geography/climate, with a substantial impact from cultural norms and diversity (largely gender and age). During the research, these categories appeared to represent different “external” lenses through which an issue was examined and which had a bearing on the thoughts, feelings, and decisions that drove behaviour. The “internal” influences of culture were largely expressed as a form of self-identity (as discussed in Chapter Three) and represented by the “cultural self” (or selves). As such, the inner part of the kaleidoscope represented the thoughts, feelings, and emotions held by individuals about their own cultural identity. The experiences throughout their lifespan contributed to a shift in this identity or, indeed, a need to shift brought about by a change in context, such as an expatriate posting or repatriation.

A systems approach Moran et al. assert, “Culture is a complex system of interrelated parts that must be understood holistically” (2007, p. 10). The cross-cultural coaching relationship may therefore be seen as a “complex adaptive system (CAS)”, as suggested by Cavanagh (2006, p. 315).

i n t r o d u c i n g t h e c r o s s - c u lt u r a l k a l e i d o s c o p e   

15

A CAS has a large number of interactive and interdependent elements forming a complex whole: systems within systems. The human body is a good example of a CAS—one change in the system means that the other parts adapt. Organisations and teams may be viewed in this way and those that don’t adapt, like the immune system, will die. As Cavanagh further suggests, “we are more than the sum of our parts” (2006, p. 316). Systems theorists, therefore, do not view situations in isolation. Moreover, a constructivist approach is generally concerned with the emergent nature of meaning-making. Situations are viewed as context driven, interconnecting and interdependent, with emergent behaviour being a dominant feature. So who we are can change depending upon the context we are in. This can represent a dilemma for leaders who often need to demonstrate firm values and swift decisions, yet are operating in an environment that is unpredictable and constantly changing. The question is, how much do we need to adapt to the new information brought into the system and how much change should be stimulated before it becomes too much to bear and is chaotic? Complexity theory calls this the edge of chaos (Lewin, 1992). Coaching has been likened to the activity of searching for patterns (Cavanagh, 2006). Viewed in this way, the process of identifying and feeding back behavioural and thinking patterns can be invaluable in the face of complexity. However, an approach to coaching that takes external factors such as historic, economic, political, social, environmental, and educational factors into account, as well as the individual in the context of his immediate relationships, can have enormous value to leaders of a CAS and to participants within them. That is to say, to identify the impact of seemingly unrelated facets upon the self and our decisions. Owing to the attention paid to the interrelationships of the system, as contained within the coaching relationship, a systems approach can therefore accommodate multiple perspectives. A person’s “system” is dynamic and constantly moving. Each person (coach and coachee) has a system that in turn impacts on the coaching relationship. Each member of a team or family has a system but together they form another system. Thus, team, corporate, and societal cultures are formed. Factor in the complexities of a global market and it may be seen that a systems approach to coaching perhaps accommodates “big picture” thinking far more than the traditional one-to-one coaching relationship demanded.

16  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Yet, coaching is a process that “drills down” to a depth that “big picture thinking” has traditionally not provided for. This can represent a paradox: global executive coaches need to accommodate the “big picture” while drilling down to the minutiae of the issue presented.

Key concept Global executive coaching needs to accommodate the breadth of “big picture thinking” whilst drilling down to the minutiae of the issue. Furthermore, looking at factors outside the coaching relationship can assist with understanding a coachee’s disposition to change and to the level of self-determinism or fatalism they are likely to display. According to Lopez et al. (2002) this varies according to the amount of control perceived in the situation, with some cultures tending to be more accepting of the situation “as is” than others. Taking a societal-level of enquiry and its impact on the individual can, for example, help to identify constructs such as guilt and shame. Augsburger (1986) suggests that individualistic societies reflect a guilt culture, whereas collective societies reflect a shame culture. Those coaches interviewed in Nepal and China, who referred to the shame that is endemic in those societies, reflected this. This contrasted with the coach from the USA who referred to a sense of guilt.

Excerpt from research “The people in the East have a sense of shame, why they don’t want to do something is because truly from their heart it’s a sense of shame and not really because of a face issue.” —Hong Kong Chinese Coach working in China Bond (1983) conducted the Chinese Value Survey that culminated in a long-term versus short-term orientation that, Hofstede (2001, 2003) first began to incorporate as the Long Term Orientation (LTO) dimension in 1991. It reflected values such as filial piety, respect for tradition, unequal status in relationships, shame, thrift, and persistence. These values are Confucian in origin. Asian personnel working for ICL in the Asia/Pacific region were frequently obliged to act according to the British culture inherent

i n t r o d u c i n g t h e c r o s s - c u lt u r a l k a l e i d o s c o p e   

17

within the organisation structure, even within a “think global act local” era. This meant adhering to short-term goals and pressures that may well have been at odds with a long-term perspective. However, as Hofstede et al. (2010) suggests, organisation cultures are concerned with practices rather than values. This would perhaps explain why in Asian homes and temples, customs that are driven by a belief system in the Gods may be manifest, but are not generally brought into the workplace, unless the workplace is a very local entity. Of particular relevance to coaching is that not only do we have little awareness about the internationalisation of culture, of how it affects our perceptions and influences our decisions, but aspects from association with our past cultural groups may impact us now in the present. Again, we are often unaware of this.

The three stages of the model The three stages of the model are intended to illustrate the dynamic nature of the cross-cultural world. Figure 2.1 represents stage one and provides a one-dimensional view, with the cultural self at the centre surrounded by the external lenses.

Figure 2.1: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: stage one.

18  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Figure 2.2: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: stage two. In Figure 2.2, stage two of the model shows how the internal and external worlds become interweaved with values creating the sense-making. According to Hall (1994, p. 40) values act as a “brokerage unit” and carry the energy of the inner world into the external world.

Key concept “Values act as a ‘brokerage unit’, carrying the energy of the inner world into the external world.” —Hall, 1994, p. 40 Organisation culture is illustrated as a strong factor in an executive coaching context and is therefore placed right in the centre of the CrossCultural Kaleidoscope model, in its full dynamic state. One might imagine that different lenses may take priority at different times in our lives. The same issue may therefore have a different perspective when looked at through the communities lens, for example, as compared with the economics lens. The Kaleidoscope model—by its very nature—is intended to illuminate the complexity of the cross-cultural landscape, where, thanks to multicultural societies, migration, and globalisation, boundaries are blurred and a person is a complex mix of influences.

i n t r o d u c i n g t h e c r o s s - c u lt u r a l k a l e i d o s c o p e   

19

Figure 2.3: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: stage three. In Figure 2.3 the model “collapses” to illustrate this. The multiple influences that impact us are presented layer upon layer, almost crowding in on each other. It is important to note that the Kaleidoscope model is not “leading with culture”. That would be projection and is inappropriate in any coaching engagement. If there are no cultural issues manifesting in the coaching issue then it is clearly inadvisable to go searching for them. Furthermore, internal and external categorisations are not intended to “pigeon-hole” or stereotype. It goes without saying that stereotyping or sweeping assumptions are inappropriate.

Key concept Projecting a cultural issue onto the coachee is inappropriate. As migration persists and globalisation intensifies, more and more people will present for coaching with complex cultural profiles, derived from exposure to multiple cultural influences. Globalisation is gathering pace and appears to be taking place in the face of enduring cultural values. Values that are established in the socialisation process and transmit across boundaries—on the one hand. On the other hand, with modernisation and social change, values shift and cultures change.

20  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

This chapter has introduced you to the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model, which is a coaching tool that has emerged from a robust theoretical foundation and research. The impact of culture has therefore been analysed from multiple perspectives. All too often, however, judgements are made by what is perceived to be manifest. Underlying the manifestations is a rich tapestry of deeply held cultural values and beliefs that drive behaviour. Some of this behaviour may be wired in the past; it may no longer serve the coachee and may well be acting against them in their current position or situation. Thus, culturally appropriate responsibility can assist with change. The following chapters explore working with the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope. In Chapter Three, this is through an exploration of the inner world of the “cultural self”. This is followed in Chapter Four by an examination of the impact of the external world upon the coachee and his context.

Chapter Three

The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: working with the cultural self

This chapter focuses on: • the concept of a cultural self • divergent concepts of the self, affecting psychological constructs, thought patterns, emotions, and behaviour • the individual in the context of a group. A key facet of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model is the possibility that a cultural self exists that is separate from, or integrated within, an individual personality (see Figure 3.1). It is situated at the centre of the model because it is often the first point of enquiry in a coaching engagement, especially when working with the meanings attached to one’s culture and the associated emotions. It also has the potential for enormous depth of enquiry.

The cultural self The cultural self provides guidance and a set of imperatives about the right way to do things according to a cultural code of conduct. This is derived from a set of cultural values and beliefs that guide decision-making. 21

22  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Figure 3.1: The cultural self. In this respect, it is like a lighthouse illuminating the issue being presented for coaching. It is probable that this cultural self is more dominant in some individuals than others and differs between cultures.

Key concept The cultural self is like a lighthouse. It illuminates that which “ought” to be done; according to a preconceived set of values and beliefs. It guides decisions and provides a reference point for what is right, wrong and “normal”. Sceptical readers will contest the existence of the cultural self. Its roots may be found in dialogical theory. Dialogical theory suggests that “self and culture are conceived of in terms of a multiplicity of positions and allows for the study of self as culture-inclusive and of culture as selfinclusive” (Hermans, 2001, p. 243). Dialogical positions suggest that conflicting values can survive due to coexisting and even competing roles in families, communities, or society. In Dialogical Self Theory (DST) the self is considered as contextual. Individuals and groups within society are incorporated so that the self goes beyond internal positions (e.g., I as the daughter of my mother, I as an educator, I as a musician), but also external positions (e.g., my family, my students, the communities to which I belong). As Hermans (2001, p.243) says, “Conceiving self and culture in terms of a multiplicity of positions with

WOR K ING WI T H T HE C ULT URAL SELF   

23

mutual dialogical relationships entails the possibility of studying self and culture as a composite of parts.” Reflecting upon these concepts further, I am struck with a feeling of humility. We are so small in the great scheme of life. Humility is one of the key spiritual principles of The Earth Charter (2000), which was developed in response to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro. The charter suggests that the way forward for a sustainable global community is through a sense of interdependence and universal responsibility; the charter sets out a set of principles that aim to foster this sense of global consciousness.

Culture, personality, and the cultural self All actions and interactions between individuals, and so also between a coach and a coachee, are influenced by three factors: personality, culture, and the particular situation in which the participants find themselves. Personality itself—inasmuch as it is the result not only of nature but also of nurture, of learning during socialisation—is also influenced by culture. So we can posit the concept of the “cultural self”. The cultural self is that aspect of the personality that has been formed due to cultural influences during the socialisation process, developed during the course of the lifespan, and impacted by a multitude of experiences and external factors. It is also possible that the cultural self is utilised as a form of defence mechanism. This may be a form of protection against an erosion of cultural values, particularly when the coachee is from a culture that is characterised by cultural mandates, such as strongly held religious beliefs. A coach believing in the concept of a cultural self will use this awareness and be sensitive to the impact of culture on the coaching relationship and the issue being brought to light. He or she may also be more likely to work at the level of emotions. As a consequence, the coach is working at a very deep level of cultural self-identity to reveal the true cultural self, as implied by the following excerpt from research.

Excerpt from research “I try to understand, pick out the truth of individual. I assist people to become their true self, defined by them and not by me.” —Chinese Hong Kong Coach working in China

24  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

During an exploration of the cultural self, the coach will be working with the personally held meanings that a person ascribes to membership of a particular culture or cultures. The following personal story illustrates how I held on to my cultural self when I was in a stressful situation in Asia. I went to Bali for a wedding and a holiday. My suitcase and all my travel documents were stolen while I was there (from a locked cupboard, in a locked apartment, in a guarded compound). I had already experienced the need to “compensate” all types of service in Indonesia—from guiding you into a parking space to giving you directions to the toilet—and had accepted that as the way things were done there. Nothing could have prepared me for what followed. I had to pay officials working in embassies, passport offices and airline offices, and to get a stamp in my newly renewed passport to prove I had arrived in Indonesia—yet I was already there standing in front of them! These practices were corrupt to me yet normal in Indonesia—it was the way they did things. I found myself yearning for what was familiar, “safe”, and “proper”. My cultural self had been well and truly challenged. Coaching at the level of the cultural self is deep and some coaches may not be comfortable working at this level. Yet, it is this profound level of cultural self-awareness that builds the coachee’s capacity to have more choices and options if appropriate, and particularly in a new context. As the research quotation below suggests, it is necessary to work at a deep emotional level in order for a person to understand their cultural self-identity.

Excerpt from research “It’s only by expressing their feelings that the person will understand their cultural self-identity. So we explore the way she sees herself and the links with emotion.” —German coach working in France Nevertheless, there are cultural differences in emotional values and societal rules for their expression. A study by Stanford psychologists Tsai and Koopmann-Holm (Parker, 2015) found that there are differences in

WOR K ING WI T H T HE C ULT URAL SELF   

25

the way people express sympathy. The people in the research sample from the USA tended to focus on the positives whilst the German people focused on the negatives. As mentioned, a coach working with the Kaleidoscope model quite often begins with an exploration of the cultural self and the exploration of the expression of emotion. This may entail an enquiry into the emotionally held meanings that a person ascribes to membership of a particular culture or cultures. It also means that the coach has to look at the value they themselves and their coachee place upon emotions, especially those that are different to their own. Working at this depth of enquiry may require that the coach asks some questions that perhaps he or she would not normally ask, such as those below.

Some possible coaching questions • What impact do your cultural values and beliefs have on your thoughts about this, if any? • How much or how little do you think your actions might be guided by any influences from your cultural background? • How does this make you feel?

Divergent concepts of the self Concepts of self can vary widely across cultures. A person tending to construe him/herself as an independent individual, or as an interdependent member of a group, is culturally bound. Cousins (1989) devised a twenty-statement test to compare self-concepts between students in Japan and the US. Results showed that the Western selfconcept is thought of as independent and autonomous, whereas the Eastern is interdependent. This is sometimes reflected in language. For example, the Japanese word for self, jibun, means “a share of the shared life space”, according to Hamaguchi (1985, cited in Markus and Kitayama, 1999, p. 343). Interestingly, Triandis (1989) discusses three “selves” or self-concepts: the private, self-assessed self (who I think I am); the public, other-assessed view of the self (who others think I am); and the collective self (who I am in the context of a group, e.g., my family/co-workers), with some cultures tolerating contradictions more than others.

26  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Triandis (1989) further classifies “tight” and “loose” cultures, and suggests that in pluralist societies there are more manifestations of the “private self”, whereas in homogeneous societies there is more sampling of the “collective self”. That said, examples of all types of selves exist in all cultures to a greater or lesser extent.

Key contemplation How much do you engage with this type of enquiry: who I think I am, who others think I am, and who I am in the context of others? Hsu (1971, p. 23) goes so far as to claim that the concept of a separate personality is Western and suggests that man’s interaction with society is more important. “Psychosocial homeostasis and Jen” incorporates relationships with others and should be the focus of enquiry, he claims. T’a pu shih jen, for example, means that (a particular) behaviour is not acceptable relative to others, indicating the importance of interpersonal relationships in the Japanese society and reflecting an Eastern self-concept derived from social relationships. In China this is found in the concept of the importance of Guanxi (connections). Han et al. (2008) conducted a study of Chinese people who identified as Christian or Buddhist as compared with those who did not identify with either. Participants were shown pictures of their selves and of other prominent figures in their culture such as the Chinese premier or Buddhist and Christian leaders, whilst being scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results showed that the Christians and Buddhist participants used the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex more frequently when using evaluations of self, relative to others. The nonreligious/non-spiritual group used the ventral medial prefrontal cortex for self-trait judgements. The study suggests that the influence of cultural beliefs and practice shapes the neural pathways in the brain and highlights differences in thought patterns relative to self and others. The Kaleidoscope provides for those cultures believing that oneself is not separate from the context. One’s external environment may be very important for someone from China for example. Following the example set for them by Confucius, it may be important to exist in harmony with one’s surroundings. According to Wong and Leung (2007) this is manifest by behaviour and through skills and knowledge, as guided by the inner hidden aspects of self.

WOR K ING WI T H T HE C ULT URAL SELF   

27

What these findings appear to be suggesting is that the coach must be ready to embrace the concept of allegiance to others as a reflection of the dominant values of certain societies. In a Western context, interdependence may be perceived to be a weakness, bringing to mind the adage of not being able to “stand on one’s own two feet”. Nevertheless, this is a reflection of the dominant value of an individualistic society and not representative of every single person within it.

Excerpt from research “The mainland Chinese people—they are more relationship based.” —Hong Kong Chinese Coach working in China Thought patterns and reasoning are culturally influenced. This not only influences the personality, but in turn influences decision-making and leadership styles. For example, there is evidence to suggest that in the East there is a preference for holistic rather than linear reasoning, an emphasis upon context not object, a view of society as an interdependent organism as opposed to a collection of independent individuals, a difficulty in expressing self, and a preference for finding the “Middle Way” (Nisbett, 2005, p. 27) that represents the thought patterns of over two billion people in the world, as represented in the following quote.

Excerpt from research “Realising, wow! There are lots of other people out there who think they’re right and have been thinking so for 5,000 years. So that was one very interesting wake-up call.” —Austrian coach based in Brazil, speaking about her experience of living in China Findings from neuroscience again suggest that the environment and our beliefs can actually shape how our brains work. In a study comparing how the brain responds to pictures of people who were standing tall with their arms crossed, and with people with their head and arms down, Freeman et al. (2009) highlighted cross-cultural differences. The American group had stronger responses in the caudate nucleus and the medial prefrontal cortex when they were looking at the pictures

28  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

of people who appeared to be strong, whereas the Japanese group responded to the illustrations of people who appeared in comparison to be more submissive. This reflects the typically assertive nature of people from the USA and the typically deferent nature of people from Asia. Perhaps most importantly, the coach needs to understand that psychological constructs, such as happiness, can mean very different things in different cultures. Acquiescence, for example, can be a sign of weakness in one culture, seen as “giving in”, and a sign of strength in another, by accommodating the “other”.

Key concept Psychological constructs can mean different things in different cultures. The notion of responsibility is the “end game” for most coaches who are trained in Western coaching processes. If the coachee takes responsibility and acts accordingly, then we have done our jobs. However, establishing responsibility to whom, for what, and why, may be a good place to start. Responsibility to society, for example, may be the overriding consideration for someone from China or Germany (Hofstede et al., 2010). In any coaching engagement, it sometimes becomes apparent that the coachee is not taking personal responsibility for the issue—he or she has lost sight of his/her part it in. Attribution theory (Heider, 1953, cited in Stainton-Rogers, 2003, p. 147) suggests that justifications are made by attributing causes to the dispositions of people or to context, with a Western orientation towards the former and Eastern towards the latter, according to Markus and Kitayama (1999). This may explain why people from or interacting with individualistic societies sometimes describe feeling personally attacked, whilst in collectivist societies the maintenance of group harmony is more important. This may be perceived by someone from an individualist society as not telling the truth, or as a “face-saving” exercise. The fundamental attribution error (Heider, 1953, cited in StaintonRogers, 2003, p. 150) may be recognisable when the personal is overemphasised, whereas the issue could reflect the prevailing culture, seemingly the case with this Ecuadorian businessman working in the USA.

WOR K ING WI T H T HE C ULT URAL SELF   

29

Excerpt from research “He had a sense that this company wasn’t doing things the way he thought they should be done. I kept saying, you have to remember that business is not supposed to be taken personally. This was very hard for him to get past and, I guess, let go of.” —American coach talking about a coachee from Ecuador These tendencies may be further compounded by a propensity to avoid self-disclosure among certain cultures, so that in the end a cultural preference for avoiding self-disclosure may be used as a defence mechanism. It could be said that the British tend to have a cultural preference for avoiding embarrassment and therefore do not self-disclose at times. But this trait may be even more apparent in those cultures that have been oppressed or colonised, such as in parts of South America or Asia. In any coaching engagement it is difficult if the coachee refuses to open up or is avoiding self-disclosure. But in situations where the coachee is constrained by cultural mandates, it may be too confronting for the coachee to ask questions directly. The technique of asking indirect questions may therefore be useful.

Some possible coaching questions when working with cultural mandates • What do you think certain members of your family might think of that? (with members of cultures where respect for elders and allegiance to family is paramount) • What do you think your boss would do in such a situation? (with members of cultures where power-distance is high) • If you were in a position of power in the government what would you do about that? (with members of cultures that defer to the power of institutions). The cross-cultural coach needs to tease out these personally held meanings and this can be quite a different approach for those trained in the Western goal-oriented process. This kind of process may take longer and Westerners may feel that the issue is being “danced around” or avoided. Patience is required, especially by those from task-oriented, low-context cultures (such as the USA and the UK). It may also mean

30  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

that the coach needs to disclose his lack of understanding of the issue when coaching someone from a culture with which he is not familiar, as the following excerpt suggests.

Excerpt from research “Can you educate me as to why this is important to you or impacts you so much? I may not have the understanding.” —French Coach working in Spain It may be useful to look at models of personality in the context of the wider culture. Rotter’s (1966) theory of locus of control, for example, may be examined alongside the prevailing culture. An individualistic culture tends to be characterised by individuals with an internal locus of control and a propensity for self-direction and even hedonism. Conversely, externally referenced individuals tend to exhibit conformity and tradition typical of a collectivist society, according to Triandis (2001).

The individual in the context of a group Social psychologists believe that members of social groups tend to be influenced in their perceptions, feelings, actions, and evaluations of others by their shared culture. In a well-known metaphor, Hofstede calls this tendency the “collective programming of the mind” (2003, p. 5). Key to this insight, however, is the use of the word tend, which is often overlooked when culture is plotted on an either/or dimension. Not every individual member of a group or culture necessarily shares all the features of the group norm; they may show many, just some, or indeed only a few. Here we see a key feature of the “cultural self” as an individual concept. Nevertheless, if we look towards social psychology, the individual in the context of the group may be brought into consideration as a universal concept. Tajfel and Turner’s (2004) social identification theory addresses the significance an individual puts on membership of a group to derive social identity. Groups may be intrinsic to society, such as the Indian caste or the British class systems, or self-selected, such as membership of a social group. Multiple groups coexist, for example, the family, organisation, community, and nation. This creates in-group and out-group affiliations. Positive self-evaluation is sought from association with the in-group and

WOR K ING WI T H T HE C ULT URAL SELF   

31

comparison and categorisation with the out-groups. In primitive ages, our association with in-groups made us feel safe and was necessary for survival; while out-groups threatened us. Findings from the field of neuroscience suggest that the amygdala makes an immediate decision upon whether others are “people like me”, and therefore “normal”, or not. If the prefrontal cortex does not apply reason to this decision, stereotyping and unconscious bias occurs (Jeffery, 2014). The person making the snap decision relates to the person as an out-group: a potential threat. Hence, there is a call for reflective practices and mindfulness techniques that allow us to make more considered decisions, or to view a situation from multiple perspectives.

Key concept We are by nature drawn to being members of groups in order to have a sense of belonging. Nevertheless, this propensity will vary from individual to individual and may be more manifest in collectivist cultures. Yet there are further complications. According to Ryde (2011), being white is seen as normal—to white people. Ryde explains that this view, coupled with the economic and cultural power that “whiteness” has traditionally brought with it, means that all non-white people can be thought of as the out-group. The privilege and wealth that has historically been afforded to first-world nations is of course changing with the forces of globalisation. In the helping professions, feelings of superiority, guilt and shame, and even over-compensation can emerge. Let us avoid this in coaching. Supervision can of course help with this. But if we think of an entire culture, race, or colour of skin as an outgroup this can be not only stereotypical thinking, but very simplistic and limiting. Hannerz (1992) suggests that many cultures are in flux, changing their nature by adopting, and adapting to, the influences of other cultures with which they come into contact. This process is known as creolisation and can be observed at the level of the individual. This may lead to the formation of a cultural self that is at odds with the simplicities of a conceptualisation of culture that sees it as largely static and homogeneous. This therefore leads to values and norms held at the individual level that are not attributable to a single culture, but changing and evolving during the course of the lifespan and with multicultural encounters. Given the forces of globalisation described in

32  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Chapter One, the cultural profiles of future generations are unlikely to be straightforward. More and more people are experiencing life as “global nomads”: at home everywhere and nowhere. Increasingly, people are growing up in between cultures and known as “third culture kids” (Pollock & Van Reken, 2001). This is the case with my son, who was born from multicultural parents in one country, went to school in several others, and has family and friends residing around the world; he is highly likely to go on and work internationally, or at least to feel comfortable working in a multicultural context. Yet, on the one hand, these experiences contribute to a complex and rich tapestry in terms of cultural profiles, on the other, they can potentially lead to conflicting internal values. My son, for example, appeared to reject his past association with other cultures when he came to live in the UK, becoming very pro-Britain. This may be attributed to many factors, not least of which is the possibility of wanting to fit in with an in-group. This chapter has introduced the concept of the cultural self as the central part of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model. The cultural self is therefore likely to be the first place to engage when eliciting awareness around the meanings that an individual ascribes to being a member of a particular culture, along with the associated emotions. The cultural self is a key element of personality with divergent psychological constructs, thought patterns, emotions, and behaviour, depending on where a person was born and the influences they encounter thereafter. This can demand that the coach works at the emotional level, which can be confronting and time consuming. As cultures change, so does the cultural self—or selves, which can lead to conflicting internal values representing a challenge for the coaching engagement. Nevertheless, working at the internal level alone is unlikely to be sufficient for the cross-cultural or global executive coaching engagement. This is because there are a multitude of external factors that influence the coachee from a cultural perspective and that in turn reposition the concept of self in the context of the other or the group. These influences are also constantly evolving. This therefore means that a much wider perspective is necessary. The next chapter addresses this by examining macro influences drawn from the external lenses of the Kaleidoscope model.

Chapter Four

The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: working with the external factors

This chapter focuses on: • the rationale for examining the external lenses of the Kaleidoscope model • a lens-by-lens approach • acknowledging the impact of organisation culture.

The rationale for an external exploration We are essentially a product of our past influences, our current imperatives, and our future aspirations. Burr suggests, “the ways in which we commonly understand the world, are historically and culturally specific” (2003, p. 3). This level of examination brings with it multiple opportunities to understand the fabric of society that the person originates from. Examining the economic or political structure of a country, for example, may provide an indication as to the opportunities or constraints an individual is likely to have. More significantly, in the

33

34  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Figure 4.1: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: the external lenses. coaching relationship, it can inform the influences contributing to a person’s belief system. The Kaleidoscope model suggests that this behaviour, skills, and knowledge is acquired through a myriad of experiences and influences throughout the lifespan. Represented in Figure 4.1 are the external lenses. These lenses constitute a theming of the main factors mentioned by research participants as having a bearing on the cross-cultural coaching relationship. Looking at factors outside the coaching relationship can also assist with understanding a coachee’s disposition to change and to the level of self-determinism or fatalism they are likely to display. According to Lopez et al. (2002) this varies according to the amount of control perceived in the situation, with some cultures tending to be more accepting of the situation “as is” than others.

A lens by lens exploration We shall now turn to look at the approach that a lens by lens exploration would take if the coach was working with a coachee with a systems perspective. This approach looks at some of the external influences

WOR K ING WI T H T HE EX T ERNAL FAC TORS   

35

that have impacted the coachee in the past or, indeed, those that are drawn from the past and are impacting the present. Also provided are some coaching questions that could be appropriate when looking at the coaching issue through that lens. This approach was validated by asking international coaching practitioners to provide reflective feedback about their experiences of using the model (see Appendix Four). Questions were then co-created with the coaches who had used the model and their suggestions were embedded. The coaching questions are not intended to be prescriptive. They are only intended to act as “signposts” or guidance as to the possibility of enquiry from the perspective of each one of the Kaleidoscope’s lenses. In other words, they are a place to start. As with all coaching sessions, the coachee leads the enquiry.

The education lens Examining external factors, such as education systems, for example, can provide some clues as to the flexibility of thought, approach to decisionmaking, and level of creativity that an individual might engage in. It also gives us some idea about the type of leadership traits that person may exhibit. For example, a Chinese person being asked to be more assertive in the UK context may not understand the importance placed on being assertive in the workplace. They are also unlikely to have been taught how to assert their own thoughts and opinions during their education, as much of the Chinese education system is based on rote learning. This is also the case in some European countries such as France, where rote learning is the norm. In contrast, in the UK education system “thinking outside the box” and asserting viewpoints is seen as good practice. This is reflected in the following quotation from a Canadian coach talking about her experiences of coaching in mainland China.

Excerpt from research “In mainland China I think that the techniques really have to change to be effective there; people seem to be at a different stage of learning. It’s about life concepts and ways of thinking—actually teaching people how to think about things.” —Canadian Coach working in Hong Kong

36  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Some possible coaching questions when working at the level of the impact of education systems • Would you tell me about your education? • What are your thoughts and feelings about the education system/s you have experienced? • What education system/s did members of your team experience? • How important is learning to you/your team?

The political lens There is much that may be gleaned from examining the historical and political landscape of a country. But this may manifest itself in unexpected ways. The leader of a person who has lived with political oppression, for example, is perhaps unlikely to realise how that could affect their attitude to work. They could perhaps be conformant or militant. Or they could pay lip service to the organisation culture while taking steps to sabotage relationships outside of work. During my time in Asia I worked among a very cosmopolitan group of people; some of whom had been educated in the West and were accustomed to US or British multinational business practices, and to all intents and purposes appeared very “Westernised”. Despite this, I learned that one Singaporean manager was practising Shamanistic rituals at home on those colleagues he perceived to be in competition with him. The following research quotation is an example of how the external political environment can affect an individual, even if they have not directly experienced it themselves.

Excerpt from research “I have had to learn to become comfortable with the politics of my country of origin by accepting the shadow self or the hidden subcultures of self.” —German coach talking about coming to terms with the legacies of Nazi politics

WOR K ING WI T H T HE EX T ERNAL FAC TORS   

37

Some possible coaching questions when working at the level of the impact of political impact • • • •

Would you tell me about the political climate in X country. How did that make you feel? How does that influence your thoughts and feelings now, if at all? What are the differences between the political landscapes you have experienced? • Have the past political influences of your team been similar/ different?

The legal lens A legal system exists to protect members of society from wrongdoing. It can also serve to restrict or enable the cognitions, emotions, and behaviours of its citizens. In those countries where there are very strict rules and harsh punishments, compliancy or rebellion can follow. In those countries with a legal system that leaves more room for interpretation and inconsistent penalties, there are more “grey areas” from which to view a situation. The following is an example of a society characterised by strict rule of law.

Excerpt from research “I worked in Singapore for a while. There you have people who follow the rule of the law. They do as they are told.” —Chinese coach

Possible questions when working at the level of the legal environment: • • • •

What is the legal system in your country? How does that differ from this country? Has this impacted your approach to your work in any way? Has your experience of living in x country with x legal framework influenced your thoughts and feelings in any way?

38  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

The religious/spiritual lens Religious or spiritual beliefs are an area that some coaches may not feel comfortable with exploring. However, this lens has been found to deliver deep insight in the coaching relationship according to feedback from coaches using the Kaleidoscope model in practice (see Chapter Five). The coachee may find that religious beliefs can impact them on a daily basis, as the following research quotation illustrates.

Excerpt from research “I worked with subconsciously held beliefs and values with a Spanish client, teacher, single, fifty, living with her mother, and finding herself challenged (stressed) by the unruly behaviours of the school children. She identified a strong need that every day on the way home from school she would go and sit in front of Blessed Sacrament to pray or to place herself in the hands of God, or cuddle into the love of God.” —French coach

Some possible questions when working at the level of the impact of religious/spiritual/moral or ethical codes of conduct • • • •

Can you share your religious/spiritual beliefs with me? Do they have any relevance/bearing on this matter? Do they influence how you live today? Are your religious/spiritual beliefs different from other members of your team? • What are your thoughts/feelings about the religious/spiritual beliefs of the host culture?

The family/community lens Some societies have more of a collective orientation than others. As do individuals. Some are more community-minded, with a strong sense of social responsibility. Others are run like a family, with a paternalistic approach. In strongly collective societies, some companies and governments are run like a family. Nevertheless, in individualist countries such as the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom there are more boundaries between

WOR K ING WI T H T HE EX T ERNAL FAC TORS   

39

the private and the public space. There is a community orientation, but it is an entirely separate concern from that of the immediate family, as the following research quotation illustrates. In the workplace, this can translate into attitudes to team working.

Excerpt from research “Family connection is very strong here; once you get outside that barrier you have much less duty to care for people, so there’s less, kind of, civic responsibility in Hong Kong. Locally, people will dump their garbage in the hallway; Canadians would not do that.” —Canadian coach working in Hong Kong

Some possible questions when working at the level of the impact of communities/family/codes of conduct • What are your thoughts about the way in which people work/live together in this culture? • How does that differ from where you come from? • What are your thoughts about family values? • Do these values impact your leadership/management style? • Have your thoughts on how people live/work together changed over time?

The cultural norms lens This particular lens has the most enormous potential for any student of cultural theory. It is the one lens that actually could be said to be “leading with culture”. Thus a coach who is well-versed in cultural theory may well see an issue from a cultural perspective, as the following excerpt illustrates.

Excerpt from research “Because of the high-context, what they tell you face-to-face, it may only be half the total story; so you have to keep talking with them and then really ask some key questions.” —Chinese coach

40  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Hall’s (1976, p. 91) classification of high-context and low-context cultures can assist with the understanding that in high-context societies (such as China) information is internalised and unexpressed, while in low-context societies (such as the USA) information is made explicit and is typically reliant on contractual obligations. It seems that the higher the context, the more the obligation to adhere to the rules governing society has been internalised. It could also be useful to point to theory in the coaching conversation particularly in relation to time/space, cultural dimensions, thought processes, and reasoning. For the coach who has not studied intercultural theory, vigilance is required to observe the cultural norms which may well be hidden. For those wishing to explore the cultural theory further, a synopsis is contained in Chapter Seven.

Some possible questions when working at the level of the impact of cultural norms • Have you observed any cultural norms or customs here that are different from your own? Or any that are the same? • How much were you obliged to follow any cultural norms or customs where you grew up? • Have you “adopted” any new cultural norms or customs from your travels? • Has any of this influenced how you behave/live today? • How relevant is that approach today?

The history lens Cross-cultural coaches may, for example, find themselves coaching someone from a society characterised by a past history of slavery. How would this affect your coachee in his/her role as a leader, or as a subordinate? How do you think they would react to someone telling them what to do and how to do it? How do you think they would react to those having many material comforts, while claiming hardship and poverty? Do you think they would completely disregard the need for luxuries—or desire them? How would they run a team, with control or collaboration?

WOR K ING WI T H T HE EX T ERNAL FAC TORS   

41

As the example below illustrates, all of these considerations could impact the issue if you are coaching someone of South American or African origins.

Excerpt from research “In Brazil there is a history of being the biggest importer of Africans into slavery in the world. So if you’re a slave, would you like to work hard for your master? I don’t think so.” —Austrian coach based in Brazil

Some possible questions when working at the level of the impact of history • Could you tell me a little about the history of your country? • How does the history of your country differ from that of each of your team members? • Does the history of this country affect your thoughts about this situation/corporate culture now? • What are your hopes for the future of X country?

The economic lens Examining the economic structure that a leader has been influenced by can bring some insights as to how they will lead. The following quotation from research suggests that those who have “grown up” as a leader under economically challenging conditions may not demonstrate leadership qualities such as decision-making and planning for the long-term.

Excerpt from research “Until a few years ago, the economy was so uncertain and inflation so high, at 200%, you could not make decisions or simply plan the way.” —Austrian coach based in Brazil

42  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Some possible questions when working at the level of economic impact • Tell me about the economic climate when you grew up/lived in x/ last lived in y? • Did it have any influence on you then? • Does it have any influence on you now in your role/country? • How does it differ from this economic climate? • What are your thoughts/feelings about this economy? • Does it impact you?

The geography/climate lens Hall’s (1966) work on proxemics is significant to this lens; where climate, noise level, and even light can all have a bearing on how individuals interact with each other. There are even cultural rules for space. Thus, in densely populated areas, such as China or Hong Kong, there is less respect for personal space as compared with those countries where space is plentiful, for instance, the United States or Canada.

Excerpt from research “When you live in a big country like the United States, you have a lot of space around you, you know, even if you live in a small apartment. Somewhere like Hong Kong, people live on top of each other and they’ll bump into you without much respect for your personal space.” —American coach In the workplace, people become accustomed to working within a certain office environment and their status is often attached to it. Think, for example, about the importance of the “corner office” to executives from the USA. It may appear to be almost inconceivable that climate could have a bearing on thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. And it may seem obvious to point out that those people who come from a hot country tend to move more slowly than those from a colder climate, who may be hurrying to escape the cold or wet weather. This, in turn, can impact a person’s disposition, with the former having more time to socialise and the latter often hidden behind an umbrella or a turned-up collar.

WOR K ING WI T H T HE EX T ERNAL FAC TORS   

43

In Singapore the “locals” used to joke that you could tell when new expatriates were in town, as they were the only ones hurrying down the street in the tropical sun. Certainly, when I lived in Singapore I began to realise the consequences attached to the expression “hot and bothered”. From my own experience, working interculturally can impact pace and tone. My clearly enunciated words, which I have learned to use since working inter-culturally, are generally well understood by non-native English-speaking people, but now appear to be countercultural to those British people who are caught up in a flurry of action and the fast pace of life. That said, I am also often too “indirect” for more direct cultures. An example of this occurred on my way back from a business trip. My French colleague and I were trying to find our seats on the Eurostar. She asked “Are you in the right seat?” I asked, “Are you attached to your window?”—clear cultural differences in how we both asked if we could sit in a seat! I will never forget a trip to the Caribbean and listening to a Caribbean gentleman drawling “Aah, we can’t do anything about the deadline; the deadline is the deadline maan.” This was said as if he did not have a care in the world. His bodily stance and slow pace and tone appeared to us to be at odds with his words, especially as compared with our perception of a deadline-oriented existence as in the UK. This illustrates another key point: culture is relative. When we make comparisons on a culture-by-culture basis, it really does depend with what we are comparing. Imagine someone from London comparing pace of life with someone from, say, Cornwall. Indeed, one might expect key differences.

Key concept Culture is relative. In an example from daily life, climate can also affect a disposition to cleanliness. My husband is, according to me, extremely fastidious. He will only use his own towel, for example; whereas I pick up the first one that comes to hand! I have learned that this

44  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

behaviour has been acquired from living in a tropical country where it is important to avoid sharing possible germs; whereas mine is in haste to save time. Climate can also affect the cultural self to the extent of being responsible for mood; imagine coming to live in a cold country when you have been used to long sunny days.

Some possible coaching questions when working at the level of the impact of geography • Would you tell me about the geography and climate where you grew up? • Do you think/feel it had any influence on you then? • How does it impact you now, if at all?

The diversity lens I have treated the diversity lens last, because this lens was added thanks to the input from those coach practitioners who saw its application in this field. A diversity lens accommodates ethnicity, age, gender, and racial differences. It should perhaps be noted that many practitioners are uncomfortable working at this level of enquiry due to the perceived threat of allegations of discrimination—whether positive or negative. However, Sue and Sue assert: “it is ironic that equal treatment in therapy may be discriminatory treatment” (2008, p. 45). In other words, people generally want to be respected for who they are and treated as such. Omitting to honour this could be having entirely the opposite outcome from that intended. Thanks to one of the coaches participating in the practitioner-based research, the Kaleidoscope’s full value was realised, owing to the inclusion of the diversity lens.

Excerpt from research “Diversity (gender, race, age) as well as global worldviews may be accommodated within this model.” —French coach working in the UK Thanks again to the input from the practitioners, the following possible questions have been suggested.

WOR K ING WI T H T HE EX T ERNAL FAC TORS   

45

Some possible coaching questions when working at the level of the impact of diversity • Does your ethnicity/age/gender/race have any bearing on this issue? • How has that affected you, if at all? • How does that make you feel?

Acknowledging the impact of organisation culture It is beyond the scope of this book to delve into an analysis of organisational cultures. It is important to acknowledge, however, the power of organisational cultures. An organisation’s culture can sometimes be the reason that a person flourishes or flounders. To be employed in a culture that does not fit one’s personal values or expectations can be very demotivating. Conversely, it can be completely energising to be amongst other like-minded people all working towards the same purpose. Organisation cultures are hard to change. They may have been in place since the company was founded and can be complex. While the nationality of the original leaders has an impact, organisational cultures also tend to become self-perpetuating. Some might refer to this as “group-think”. Much work needs to be done when merging one or more cultures together and global organisations today can have a legacy of several cultures spanning several generations, during which time the very nature of their raison d’être may have changed, not to mention the world of work. Take, for example, computer companies who in the 1950s and 1960s were leaders in proprietary mainframe technology. They have had to change to accommodate the new “open” technology and consumer preferences for tablets and cloud-based computing, and, as a result, have had to change manufacturing and production methods, processes, skillsets, and mindsets accordingly. As Senge commented (2006, p. 343) “Systems citizenship starts with seeing the systems that we have shaped and which in turn shape us.” He then goes on to say, “until we start to see the larger patterns and our own part in creating these patterns. Once we do, new alternatives become evident.” A systems approach therefore appears to be mandatory for future sustainability. Sometimes the cultural self may become suppressed or conflicted owing to the stronger organisational context. This not only calls for an understanding of the coachee’s internal cultural “wiring” but the

46  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

cultural context in which he or she works and its influence on his emotions, thoughts, and behaviours. For example, a person coming from a culture of deference to authority may be at odds with a corporate culture that values assertiveness from its personnel. Even departments or divisions have their own cultures which are sometimes at odds with each other, such as sales and marketing or research and development and finance. This can cause silos (“in-group” and “out-group” thinking) and personnel who can find their colleague’s mindset “strange”, just because they are from another department or discipline. The current trend towards cross-functional, agile teams may go some way towards alleviating these issues, at the same time as promoting innovation through diversity of thought.

Some possible questions when working at the level of the impact of organisation culture • What is/are your organisation culture/s? • Have your personal cultural values and beliefs changed since you have been working here/in this team/with this person? • So what do you think/feel now? • What team/departmental/organisation culture would you like to exist in the future? Why? This chapter has explored the external lenses of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model and provided a snapshot of their possible impact on the coaching context. It has explained that the diversity lens, which was not identified as an area for potential exploration in the original research study in 2008, was added thanks to the reflective input from coach practitioners. It has also acknowledged the strong influence of organisation culture/s and the impact on the cultural self. It may therefore be seen that there are a multitude of factors that influence a coachee’s “system”, at both macro and micro levels. Over the course of a person’s lifetime or career these influences can converge or even potentially conflict. The following chapter now explores possible applications of the Kaleidoscope in coaching practice.

Chapter Five

Using the Kaleidoscope

This chapter focuses on: • raising culturally derived awareness with the Kaleidoscope • taking culturally appropriate responsibility with the Kaleidoscope • the use of the Kaleidoscope as an “antenna” for unlearning. From 2011 I worked with practising executive coaches, based in different parts of the world (see Appendix Three) to explore the applicability of the Kaleidoscope for coaching practice. I also explored its possible applications with multicultural groups of coaching educators, executive coaching students, MBA students, and HR professionals. As a result, several ways in which it is possible to make use of the Kaleidoscope model have been identified, following feedback from these different groups of people. It is not my intention to be prescriptive about its use. In fact, people may use it as they see fit. What does appear to be the case, however, is that Western models may not be appropriate for all cultural groupings, as the following illustrates.

47

48  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Excerpt from research “Transporting a Western way of doing things and not taking into consideration other values, especially if you work with people who grew up in different environments, can underestimate certain conflicts or potential conflicts.” —Austrian Coach who has worked in China The main purpose of this chapter is to explain how the Kaleidoscope has been used in practice so far, by coaches operating interculturally. Two main applications have been identified. These are, first, for raising culturally derived awareness, and, second, for taking culturally appropriate responsibility. This builds on the work of Whitmore (2002) who describes the raising of awareness and taking of responsibility as the essence of good coaching. However, the Kaleidoscope may also be used as a guide, a kind of “antenna” to alert the coach to a potential cultural issue. Whilst the model may of course be offered to the coachee as a colour A4 handout either before or during the coaching session, when used as a guide or antenna it would be incumbent upon the coach to keep the model in mind as a mental map.

The applications of the Kaleidoscope model in coaching practice The Kaleidoscope model for raising awareness The Kaleidoscope can be used: • as a visual image to keep in mind either before or during the coaching session and/or mentoring relationship in order to alert the coach to possible cultural issues • as a method to aid reflection so that coaches may raise their awareness of the impact of their own cultural beliefs on the coaching relationship • to evoke a discussion with the coachee or mentee and to use as a basis for exploration either before or during the coaching relationship • to enable the identification of which of the segments or lenses of the Kaleidoscope holds the most resonance for the coachee and which may represent a good starting point for the coaching conversation • to aid reflection upon the cultural self/selves—working at the level of cultural identity

u s i n g t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e   

49

• to explore the cultural impact upon the issue brought for coaching, by invoking a dialogue about which lens (if any) has the most impact upon the issue • to assist with the identification of the possible impact of external influences on leadership styles • to aid the identification of how these external influences may show up or influence the self “in the moment” • to assist with a conversation that may lead to the identification of cultural imperatives and conflicting internal values • to assist with raising either the coach or coachee’s own cultural awareness of his cultural bias • to be presented as a global “wheel of life” tool by asking, “On a scale of one to ten, how would you rank the importance of each of these influences in your life?”

The Kaleidoscope model for taking responsibility The Kaleidoscope can be used: • to create culturally appropriate choice and behavioural change • as a basis for “unlearning” those cultural values that no longer serve the coachee, so that they may take responsibility appropriately. It should be noted, as previously mentioned, that responsibility means different things in different cultures (Plaister-Ten, 2009) and therefore calls into question a coaching approach which is entirely based in the Western goal-oriented, non-directive style of coaching.

Using the Kaleidoscope as an antenna To explore further how to use the Kaleidoscope, it is sometimes useful to keep the imagery of an antenna in mind. This antenna can act as a guide, or as a means of intuitive response to a situation where the coach may just have a hunch. It may therefore be utilised as a tool to test a hypothesis. This example may help to illustrate this further. If my coachee is reporting how someone else has offended him or her, I might just ask the question, “What nationality is he/she?” If the person is from a different cultural background this naturally leads into a discussion of differing communication styles, in which case I may make a mental bookmark

50  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

of the quotation, “Culture in its entirety is a form of communication” (Hall, 1959, p.28). That said, simply asking this question may illuminate differing attitudes to hierarchy, approaches to risk, or simply differing work practices. But how do you realise when a coaching issue is culturally imbued without making unnecessary judgements or false assumptions? In his blog, Livermore comments that, “culturally intelligent leaders know when it’s cultural and when it isn’t” (2015a). He acknowledges that, on occasion, cultural differences are used as a disguise for something else. This may be as an excuse or a defence mechanism. He suggests asking yourself the following key questions when trying to determine whether an issue is culturally imbued or not: • How does the “unusual” perspective or behaviour you’re experiencing compare with what research indicates about the norms for that culture? (In Chapter Seven of this book, I have included the theoretical body of empirical evidence that supports the fact that there are cultural norms, exhibited through behaviour, that belong to groups of people from certain cultures. It is this body of knowledge that has contributed to the development of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model.) • What are the other possible explanations for this perspective and/or behaviour? Consider the following: • Personality: To what extent is this behaviour unique to this individual? • Circumstances: What else is going on at the time that might explain this behaviour? • Organisation: How much is the organisation culture exerting pressure on the individual to act in a certain way? • Power struggle: How much is the coachee in competition with others? Livermore (2015b) further suggests that a cultural expert can provide a third-party view that may be required to validate whether or not the issue is cultural. He also suggests that confirmation bias may be impacting the interpretation of the issue. *  *  * The following coaching examples from my practice illuminate cultural issues.

u s i n g t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e   

51

Coaching stories My client, a vice president in a large corporation, had been expatriated to the UK from Italy. He explained that his boss had casually enquired whether he could remove someone from a project. This request would mean that my client would have to take on a large project in addition to his existing large workload. I was reminded of the cultural norms lens of the Kaleidoscope in exploring this issue and it occurred to me to ask, “How would that have happened in Italy?” He responded, “Oh, not like that. It would have come out of a brainstorming session.” It was clear that he was uncomfortable with the ambiguity and informality of the request (UK communication style), which was disguised as a question. Another example I can point to is from my work with a client from another large company who had been seconded from the USA to the UK. Her key coaching objective was to adopt a balance between “advocacy and inquiry” communication styles. Being from the USA, her natural tendency was to go straight to advocacy, with a direct style that alienated others at times. I was reminded of the cultural theory that reinforces this. Again, the cultural norms lens here helped to signpost me to the right type of questioning. During a role play, I invited her to begin her sentences with “may I” or “can I offer my thoughts here?” at which point she said, “You mean I have to ask permission to speak?!” Such divergent approaches meant that she literally thought that British people were seeking permission, rather than softening direct requests or opinions with the aim of being polite. My next example concerns a Chinese scientist who had been sent to coaching by his management in order to work on his assertiveness. In exploring the issue it occurred to me to ask, “What does assertiveness mean to you?” He said he did not know. His English-language skills being challenged, he consulted the dictionary. It transpired that there is no direct word for assertiveness in Chinese; so his management were asking him to become something he did not even have a word for. There were clear cultural differences that I was signposted to from the education lens of the Kaleidoscope. In China rote learning is the norm and students have not generally been taught to speak up for themselves. This is nevertheless changing among the younger generations and those that have been educated in Western universities or learning styles.

52  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Coaching tip Each practitioner will have his own unique way of working with the Kaleidoscope. It is true to say that directive questions can take the coaching down a path it may not have otherwise gone down. As ever in coaching, open questions can yield information and insight. The lens by lens questions offered in the preceding chapter provide a framework to explore the impact of culture. I am not being prescriptive about the types of questions that should be asked, or the way in which they should be asked. I am merely giving some examples. Nevertheless, feedback from the coachees in the sample found value in these questions, in addition to a willingness to explore suggestions. Contracting plays a big part here. As ever, it is important to contract with the coachee before offering suggestions. If they do not wish to accept then that is perfectly fine. The use of the Kaleidoscope as an antenna is extremely useful as an aid to detecting differing value systems, organisation structures, and societal norms experienced during the course of the coachee’s lifespan. Similarly, there is the potential to illuminate internal self-conflict based upon conflicting and even competing values. This may become obvious when working with “global nomads” or perpetual expatriates who may have experienced wide and varied influences from multiple cultures, often from childhood. According to Carter, “People brought up in diverse cultures often have a different personality in each one” (2008, p. 99). This suggests that the bicultural personality may become evident, or it could reflect differing manifestations of the public self. I have observed my son, for example, exhibiting different behaviour in three cultures—like a cultural chameleon. As a “cultural chameleon” a coachee may be required to adapt in many diverse situations, environments and cultures.

Excerpt from research “I am required to be very gung-ho and talk about results, results, results at work; with my (British) friends I have to be this fun guy; and at home I have to be respectful to our language and traditions. It sometimes gets confusing.” —A male coachee, 38, born to Indian parents and living in the UK working for an American multinational

u s i n g t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e   

53

Working with conflicting values Cultural chameleons or global nomads may therefore lose sight of who they really are. Their core values may have become eroded or, perhaps even more typically, start to conflict, as the following excerpt from research illustrates.

Excerpt from research “I had a client in Taiwan. He was involved in a family business related to his wife’s family; there was a hierarchy in the family and there were huge expectations for him to enter that business, even though he had an internal struggle about whether that was really what he wanted. I’m realising now that I would have been acting as a counterpoint—because he was educated in the US, he really valued Western thinking about independence and he knew that there was a difference in his culture and the way he was educated and so there were some conflicting values for him. It was probably useful for him to be able to talk with someone like me because I would easily understand those values; whereas he’s living in Taiwan surrounded by people who don’t understand those values so well and would have expectations about him with regards to his duty to his family.” —Canadian coach

Coaching tip This person may be presenting for coaching with values that no longer work well for him. He may, for example, struggle with the need to deliver short-term business results at the expense of his personal belief system that values longterm relationship-building in business. Conversely, he may have become so “Westernised” in his management approach, that he strives to deliver the (often short-term) results at the expense of meeting the needs of his team or family, or the long-term future of his organisation or of society. For example, an executive with strong family values may be at odds with a corporate culture that requires responsiveness for twenty-four hours each day.

54  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

To understand this further it may be useful to visualise the Kaleidoscope model again. Figure 5.1 shows how values form a backdrop to the model, being constantly present albeit sometimes out of awareness. As explained, values act as a kind of “peacemaker” (Hall, 1994) that transports the energy of the inner world into the external world. An exploration of values, that may have changed due to the context, or that remain constant even with a change of context can provide for a rich cross-cultural coaching engagement.

Figure 5.1: The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope: illustrating the importance of values. According to Paul Mitchell, coach and founder of The Human Enterprise, “As coaches we are pattern recognition experts” (Mitchell, cited in Stober & Grant, 2006, p. 313). One of the most interesting pieces of feedback received from one of the participants who used the Kaleidoscope throughout an entire coaching session was that her coachee had chosen to start with the “religion” lens, and as they worked through the entire wheel it was illuminating to become aware of the enduring impact that her religious values had upon her, and how it influenced the other lenses throughout the wheel. In this way, not only did it uncover depths of understanding, but it highlighted patterns that have affected every single aspect of her life throughout her lifespan—powerful!

u s i n g t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e   

55

Unlearning A contemplation of culture as acquired, or learned and “unlearned”, suggests that coaching could facilitate an awareness of those culturally bound responses no longer serving the coachee. This potentially implies that the coachee may be better placed in letting go of certain cultural constructs that he has grown up with or developed. Yet, according to Hofstede “unlearning is more difficult than learning for the first time” (2003, p. 4). As the example below illustrates, my habits in everyday situations endorse Hofstede’s assertion. My husband and I disagree about the washing-up process. We have discovered that our different approaches are culturally bound: mine to save time and his to prevent disease. Changing behaviour even on this simple level is difficult. Cross-cultural coaches may be required to work with sensitive issues that are culturally mandated, such as religious or spiritual mandates, limiting beliefs, or the legacy of an oppressive regime. This necessitates sensitivity and creativity, which may be framed as modifying awareness, or working with contradiction, rather than the pursuit of an actionoriented outcome. In such cases, the coach would be working with the coachee to break free from limitations and conditioning, if appropriate to do so. Unlearning can be a useful tool in coaching where values conflict or where they are so deeply entrenched that they are getting in the way of progress, or even everyday life.

Key contemplation A key skill for the cross-cultural coach is the unlearning of deeply entrenched cultural responses. This chapter has explored how the Kaleidoscope model has been used as a tool to raise culturally derived awareness and facilitate culturally appropriate responsibility. It has been used as a basis for discussion throughout the coaching session, thus shaping the entire coaching conversation. It has been identified for use either at the beginning, middle, or end of a session or as a pre-session tool. It has been reported to have deepened the strength of the relationship, owing to the potentially emotional nature of the enquiry it can evoke.

56  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

It has also been used as a tool to raise the self-awareness of the coach to his own cultural influences and in so doing to enable him to bracket any preconceptions before entering the coaching relationship. Of key significance—given that my original research question was, “How important is it for the coach to have an understanding of a coachee from a different worldview?”—is that it has been reported to deliver to the coach a much greater depth of understanding of the coachee.

Excerpt from research “Without using this tool it is unlikely that this depth of understanding would have materialised.” —British Coach working in the Middle East This chapter has identified the use of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope in executive coaching and leadership and management contexts. Using the Kaleidoscope, global executive coaches can break through the complexity with an incisive tool that can provide the foundation for conversations that would ordinarily be too complex, too inhibitive, or take too much time to uncover. Can you just imagine the impact amongst teams of global workers, each with their own cultural landscape and cultural complexity? This may be represented by ecosystems of partnerships, and agile and remote team working. Furthermore, this will require a new suite of management skills in order to be able to compete successfully in fastpaced, competitive, international markets. We shall therefore now turn to the Kaleidoscope in the context of team working.

Chapter Six

The Kaleidoscope in teams

This chapter focuses on: • why coaching is appropriate for global team effectiveness • the importance of trust among multicultural teams • applications of the Kaleidoscope for global teams. Teamwork is the ability to work as a group towards a common vision—even if that vision becomes extremely blurry. This definition of teamwork, which I saw on a poster, resonated with me. According to research conducted by Ashridge (2006), global leaders need to find a way to bring the “outside world in”. This means that executives need to be aware of the context in which they are operating by looking at political, economic, social, technological, legislative, and environmental (PESTLE) trends that are or will impact their business, for better or worse. They also point to the challenges of complexity and ambiguity in a volatile world, and the need to be connected to the external stakeholders. Such stakeholders, like government regulators or local community groups, may have a say or have an impact across the entire supply chain. 57

58  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Bringing the outside in is a useful analogy. But it is the interdependency of the context that can bring the most insight into strategic decision-making. A decision made at a local level can cause huge harm to the brand and reputation of an organisation; whilst a central branding campaign that fails to pay attention to local values can flounder. In a recent survey, Wasserman (2012) claimed that sixty-five per cent of investors in start-up companies said they typically fail due to problems in the management team. Furthermore, as stated, mergers and acquisitions are notorious for failure and are exacerbated by cultural differences. Team coaching would appear to represent a key opportunity for the global executive coach, since the team is a system and therefore represents a microcosm of the organisation in its entirety. If we think of an individual and all of the complexity that has been illuminated through the use of the Kaleidoscope at an individual level, then imagine the potential of identifying the patterns inherent within multiple teams, in multiple locations, in multiple organisations in multiple countries; each with their own unique economic, political, historical, and social environments. The Kaleidoscope as a team tool can therefore be used to raise awareness of the patterns of cultural complexity inherent within the team. It can be useful to illuminate contradictions within the organisation system and therefore it can be used as a problem-solving tool. It can be used to elicit the meaning and purpose of the team. Or even more powerfully, used as a transformation tool, with co-operation in eco-systems across the globe. These eco-systems may be characterised by shareholders, suppliers, customers, regulators, pressure groups, and competitors, all working together.

The challenges of working in teams We are perhaps familiar with working in organisations where missions get set at the top and by the time they are communicated to the workforce, layers upon layers of meaning, interpretations, and opinion become misunderstood—and that’s in one language. Imagine the challenges of communicating a common vision across a global population, each with their own languages, values, and interpretations of what is or should be important. Teams may be engaged in group think, in-group and out-group thinking, stereotyping, or lack of respect for differences. They may be unwilling to risk falling out of favour with the leader of the team and do

t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e i n t e a m s   

59

not, therefore, want to say or do anything that may cause disagreement. They may also simply not understand what is required of them. Or they may fail to recognise that others think, feel, or do, differently from them. I remember when I went to breakfast, during the first trip I had to Indonesia: I was shocked to discover people eating noodles for breakfast. I thought the whole world ate toast! A simple, but potent, example of a misunderstanding on a very basic level. Moreover, members may be sabotaging the teams’ efforts by refusing to offer up new ideas for a multitude of reasons, such as fear of being wrong, defensiveness, or detachment. As a result, the team is highly likely to lack the “fire in its belly” necessary to drive creativity and innovation and to effect dynamic change. This means that creativity can be stifled and new ideas not brought to light. Furthermore, the team will not be holding each of its members accountable for their part and the net result can be a slippage of timelines, delayed product introductions, a lack of inventive new solutions to problems, dissatisfied customers and stakeholders, and a drop in market share, revenue and earnings.

The importance of trust Lencioni (2002) identifies five dysfunctions of a team: absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. Yet the ways in which different cultures derive trust will most certainly continue to impact team effectiveness. For example, a team member from Germany may seek trust through a demonstration of competence, a Swiss member by being on time, a Spanish member by socialising prior to the meeting, a French member by establishing which university fellow team members went to, a Dutch member by how direct and “to the point” colleagues communicate, a Swedish member through affiliation and consensus, while a Chinese person might be looking to the most senior member of the team for direction and reinforcement. You can easily see how on the level of cultural norms alone, a deep distrust may become embedded within the team. Other potential areas for disagreement include technical competency, functional differences, behavioural traits, or “simple” personality differences amongst others.

60  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

The International Team Trust Indicator tool from WorldWork measures nine key criteria that people use when deciding whether or not to trust other people. These are competence, compatibility, benevolence, integrity, predictability, security, inclusion, openness with information, accessibility, and reciprocity. Higher levels of trust among teams have been linked to key business results, including competitive advantage, productivity, commitment, and employee retention among others. However, Trickey (2006) acknowledges that it is the meaning of trust that is not universal. Coaching around trust may therefore need to ask, “Trust in whom or what?” According to Delhey and Newton (2003), trust may be viewed as an individual property that people either do or do not have, or as a social structure. Viewed as a social structure it is a contextual property (such as conflict or safety) or emergent property (such as a change in the political climate) that causes people to act accordingly. Their research across seven different societies identified societal conditions, social networks (informal personal links) success, and well-being as being key determinants of trust across all seven societies. In short, it is suggested that those who are successful in life trust more; whereas anxiety is associated with mistrust. In the UK we need only look at the recent (May, 2015) election to see this in action. Distrust in the political system and its representatives who have not kept their word has taken its toll. If the role of the leader of a team is in surfacing conflict and in stimulating opposing ideas, it will be necessary to embrace the complexity and discomfort of this place of enquiry. This may be extremely difficult to do with those cultures that value respect and courtesy rather than disagreement, and are deferent in nature. Yet, denial so frequently resides in teams bound by organisation cultures demanding a rigid adherence to the corporate mission or espoused values. This is like putting a straitjacket on those people who are creative by nature, people who, for every brilliant idea they might have, verbalise ninety-nine other less brilliant ideas; or people who prefer to consider a range of options and may have their best ideas upon reflection. This is much to the annoyance, frustration, and confusion of their colleagues, who may be linear thinkers, swift decision makers, or “solutioneers”. This means that the leader has to be ready to navigate the emotional energy of the team. It can be a bumpy ride and demands that the leader is relentless in his mission to surface the “truth” of the team. When working with people from China or many other Asian countries, this may be difficult

t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e i n t e a m s   

61

due to the high-context (Hall, 1976) nature of communication patterns. They may not be assertive, may not say no, and may not offer up ideas for fear of losing face. Working with a multicultural team means that more time is required to explain why it is important to surface disagreement and to explore the individual approaches to conflict in the team. So, for example, if a team member does not think that something is achievable, the team leader’s role is not only to surface this, but to work at a deep level of enquiry to identify why this is so and what can be done about it. If a team member is not forthcoming at all, then it is the team leader’s role to explore why. This will be extremely uncomfortable for those cultures that place a high value on harmony. The leader can help by being transparent and through the modelling of the types of behaviours required of other team members. Eventually, when all of the scepticism, resistance, denial, obstruction, disbelief, and disrespect have been surfaced, the global executive coach/team facilitator can begin to work at the level of team identity and then move back to a positive enquiry approach. Questions such as, “What kind of team do they want to be and why?” “What is this team like?”,“and that’s like what?”, eliciting a metaphor for the team, can be hugely insightful and illuminating. Here national cultures may have a tendency to put forward their country’s national sport, such as hockey for the Canadians and cricket for the Brits. On the other hand, in a global team it may be that a smorgasbord of ideas are necessary in order to compete on a global stage. Musical analogies can characterise the team into a seamlessly integrated orchestra, each team member with their own vital part. A widely known global historical fact may alternatively serve as a powerful metaphor; along with food, art, and dance all presenting opportunities for synergies. Once the team is aware of who it is and what it stands for, then the real work can begin. The Kaleidoscope can be used as a key tool in the emergence of a multicultural team’s collective meaning and purpose, including the collaborative identification of group outcomes and performance measures and rewards. This may come more naturally from members of collective cultures such as China; although they will still want direction from the leader. The Kaleidoscope can also be used in conjunction with tools such as the Team Management Profile developed by TMS Development

62  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

International (TMSDI). This tool illuminates individual preferences within a team environment and may be said to transcend cultures. This is because regardless of geographical spread, people’s preferences tend to fall within the action-oriented and analytical categories, reflecting the nature of the world of work for a lot of people. The global executive coach/team facilitator role then moves to the elicitation of accountabilities. Within a multicultural context, this may be achieved by breaking down tasks and facilitating the assignment of responsibilities.

Virtual team working It is important to assess what type of team is in the process of being formed. The chances are that the global team will be a virtual one. Abbott defines a global virtual team as “a group of two or more people with a common purpose working together across different international locations that primarily relies on technology for communication and collaboration” (2009, p. 269). But virtual team working represents huge challenges for the global executive coach/team facilitator. Caulat (2012) suggests that a new paradigm of leadership is required for virtual team working and puts forward the concept of the Facileader, being a hybrid of the words facilitator and leader. The Facileader is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of both the technical (technology, process, purpose) and the relationship (culture, communication, trust) aspects of the team, with both having equal importance. In this respect, the global executive coach/team facilitator needs to adopt a facilitative coaching style in order to address both the “hard” and “soft” aspects of virtual working. A facilitative leader typically engages in an “emergent” fashion, identifying solutions as the work progresses. It is further suggested that action learning techniques (Abbott, 2009; Caulat, 2012) may be drawn upon to raise awareness of issues or themes in teams, the type of tasks involved, and to identify a common purpose. In my work as an intercultural trainer/coach it is becoming increasingly acknowledged that the key to effective virtual working resides in the generation of positive relationships (trust, as mentioned). Other key challenges reside in the application of technology, the use of plain and simple English (where English is used as the business language of commonality), the need to adhere to public holidays and religious holidays across the globe, and the use of appropriate humour (the English, for example, are well known for their sarcasm and wit that

t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e i n t e a m s   

63

just does not translate across cultures). While these challenges are well known and accepted, the opportunity for virtual working has not been fully embraced—despite its benefits. Virtual working still seems to be conducted in an ad-hoc manner. Yet, distributed project teams across the globe can effect change quickly, be a rich source of diverse and innovative ideas, and be a key factor in recruitment and retention from an employee satisfaction standpoint. From a purely financial standpoint alone, Global Workplace Analytics states that almost six out of ten employers save on costs through “telecommuting”, with savings estimated at around 10,000 US dollars per employee per year. Given the enormous potential that “workshifting” (Citrix Online cited in Lister & Harnish, 2010, 2011) represents, it is still surprising that companies do not plan for this strategically. Best practice as identified by The Work Design Collaborative (Ware & Grantham, 2010) identifies the need for a structured change programme that includes planning, designing, leading, and managing the shift to new working practices. With demands upon the increasing agility of remote global teams, teams should be ready to be assembled and disassembled swiftly according to business needs. It is therefore important to involve as many virtual workers as is practical and to make sure that the policies are communicated and cascaded to every worker affected by them.

The Kaleidoscope as a team tool The Kaleidoscope was not originally conceived of as a team tool. However, since I have witnessed its use in group situations it has emerged with potential to contribute to the building of team relationships, a factor identified as critical to the success of global team effectiveness. Thus, while task and process are important, working relationships are equally, if not more so. Imagine then the power of a tool that can provide some structure around relationship-building that goes a bit deeper than showing photographs of one’s children or pets in order to generate trust, meaning, and purpose. The Kaleidoscope may be incorporated by exploring differences in values, expectations, styles of working, communication patterns, approaches to management and leadership, and to what constitutes success. At its simplest level, asking each of the team members to identify which lens holds the most resonance for them will illuminate their key cultural value. For example, I might be drawn to the communities lens because of the strength of my family. I also may prefer to

64  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

think of my team as a family. I may, however, be drawn to the education lens because of the strong academic or technical training I have had. This may mean that I like to draw on my functional or technical expertise in my team. On the other hand, I may be drawn to the cultural norms lens. The cultural norms may suggest that I am used to seeking direction from a leader and therefore I expect that from my team leader if there is one; if there isn’t one, then that may represent a problem for me and I may expect that a leader is appointed. At its most powerful, the Kaleidoscope may be used to inform corporate strategy by looking at factors external to the business, and to spark debate about the need for change.

Key application areas • The Kaleidoscope as a team-building tool: Team members are typically seeking to understand each other or to share knowledge. • The Kaleidoscope as a problem-solving tool: Team members are typically engaged in solving business or technical issues and are “solutioneering”, that is, innovating new products, solutions, services, or new ways of doing things. • The Kaleidoscope as a transformational tool: Team members are typically engaged in embedding change into the organisational system.

Applications of the Kaleidoscope as a team-building tool There are several possible ways to use the Kaleidoscope as a teambuilding tool. It represents an opportunity for a “watercooler” moment; the content or output does not have to be structured, graded, or assessed in any way, by anyone. In effect therefore, it is a relationshipbuilding tool. Here are some suggestions: • Each virtual worker in the team explores his own unique landscape pertaining to a lens that has been pre-selected by one of the team members, for example, history. This may be shared prior to setting up the team. • Each team member shares a ten-minute story with the rest of the team, as a way to introduce himself. The team member draws on one or more of the lenses that holds the most resonance for him.

t h e k a l e i d o s c o p e i n t e a m s   

65

• On an ongoing basis, a lens is selected for exploration each week/ month. Everyone explores and shares the same lens. This can be used to reconnect dispersed teams.

Applications of the Kaleidoscope as a problem-solving tool To give a possible example of the context for these applications: a functional team, such as a marketing department, may be launching a new global brand and needs to consider the implications of the external lenses on a country-by-country basis. They could use the Kaleidoscope to: • identify the unique attributes of the team/product/service • analyse the economic, political, business, environmental, and geographical environment of new markets so that commonalities may be identified as well as unique market conditions and barriers to entry • identify issues such as poverty, fuel shortages, housing shortages, or pollution, and their impact on the business • leverage synergies in approach to the project or programme across boundaries, thus avoiding reinventing the wheel • identify strengths and weaknesses of the team by illuminating the “threads” or patterns identified by each team member • identify any additional resourcing or training needs that may be highlighted by examining gaps • highlight any changes in working methods, mindset, or behavioural responses, which may be identified.

Applications of the Kaleidoscope as a transformational tool • The Kaleidoscope may illuminate the external political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) trends that have or may have an impact on the business, for example, water shortages or an aging population. It may inform strategy and scenario planning or risk identification exercises. • The meaning and purpose of the team/s may be identified and a group story elicited, tapping into the emotional energy of the organisation/division or team.

66  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

• By mapping the meaning and purpose of these teams with the organi­ sational values, meaning, and purpose, the teams may contribute to the overall mission of the organisation and its core business strategy. • The Kaleidoscope can provide a structure for an ethical leadership programme development. This chapter has identified some of the key challenges around team working and suggests that this calls for a new paradigm of leadership to meet the conditions of the global economy and global virtual team working. Leaders must not only be ready to confront the difficulties that intercultural teams face in a culturally appropriate manner, but must develop a blueprint for working remotely. Most importantly, they should look at their own leadership function and be prepared to be agile, assembling and dismantling teams based on the business imperative. Tools such as the Kaleidoscope for teams, along with action learning and an appreciative enquiry approach to coaching, can help to elicit the meaning and purpose of multiple teams. It can also help to embed transformational change at a systemic level. Furthermore, it is expected that these approaches will deliver competitive advantages to those organisations seeking to embed their function as a social enterprise and to redefine themselves for this era of globalisation. The following chapter explores some of the theoretical body of knowledge that contributed to the development of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model.

Chapter Seven

The body of literature informing the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model

This chapter focuses on: • the dearth of cross-cultural coaching literature • the wider literature categories explored • the contribution of the literature to the development of the CrossCultural Kaleidoscope model. In this chapter I present key concepts from the body of knowledge that has informed the development of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model. This chapter is in part extracted from a paper published in the International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring (PlaisterTen, 2013). Coaches who are working with the manifestation of cultural behaviour, habits, and norms should be informed by cultural theory. Multiple branches of psychology have influenced studies of culture, particularly cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology, social psychology, and, more recently, positive psychology. These divergent approaches have led to differences of opinions over whether culture restricts or enables cognitions and behaviours, and as to whether a universal psychology 67

68  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

should exist, despite evidence to suggest that there are differences in cognition patterns between East and West (Nisbett, 2005).

Culture in coaching literature Rosinski (2003) pioneered a cultural perspective in coaching. Since then, Law et al. (2007), Law (2011, 2013), Moral and Abbot (2009), Stout Rostron (2009), the Association for Coaching and Passmore (2009), and Shams and Lane (2011) have posited a cultural perspective in coaching. Given that the impact of culture remains largely unacknowledged and is out of awareness for many, Rosinski (2003) offers the cultural orientations framework (COF) which is making inroads in both private and public sectors, whilst Law et al. (2007) and Law (2013) propose the adoption of the Universal Integrated Framework (UIF). The following categories of global leadership, values and values systems theory, cultural dimensions, impact of cultural values on the self, and the relevance of systems reach beyond the body of work from the coaching domain. These categories were reviewed and informed the creation of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model.

Global leadership The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study House et al. (2002, 2004) is a research study focused on culture and leadership in sixty-one nations. The study took place over several years and identified six global leadership dimensions: charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, participative, humane-oriented, autonomous, and self-protective. The questionnaire built on the original work of Hofstede (1980, 2001), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), McClelland (1985) and Putnam (1993), and explored differences and similarities in global leadership. It found five leadership dimensions that were universally accepted: integrity, being inspirational, results-orientation, being visionary, and team orientation. Two dimensions were universally not accepted: being unethical, and self-protectionism or advancement. There were six that were found to be culturally contingent: status consciousness, a procedural orientation, being autonomous, humane orientation, taking risks for greater good, and competitiveness.

T h e b o dy o f l i t e r at u r e i n f o r m i n g t h e K ALEI D OS C O P E M O D EL   

69

This study has illuminated the fact that leadership is undoubtedly a universal phenomenon, but also that the value that followers from different cultures place on different aspects varies widely. This has been termed Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) (House et al., 2002). ILT can account for differing leadership styles among national cultures and the mismatched expectations that very often cause misunderstandings. Javidan et al. (2006) also explain that a leader from one culture may not necessarily be a good leader in a different culture, because expectations around leadership are different. The study concluded that acceptable management practices in one country are not guaranteed to work in another and if the leader does not adapt his leadership style to the new culture then he is likely to fail to be accepted as a leader. However, the study also identified that there are not only differences, but similarities. As mentioned, a skillful coach working with a diverse team can leverage these synergies for increased effectiveness, harmony, and competitive advantage.

Values and value systems theory An examination of values is often a good place to start in coaching. Values are said to be the brokerage unit between a person’s external and internal worlds (Hall, 1994, p. 40). For this reason it is suggested that it is good practice for global executive coaches to familiarise themselves with the theory encompassing cultural values. Anthropological studies and ethnographies have contributed to the perspective that culture is transmitted inter-generationally as habits, beliefs, norms, values, and behaviour. Holden suggests this reflects the view of culture as “relatively stable, homogeneous, internally consistent”, and something that people “have or belong to” (2002, p. 27). He posits the need to look beyond cultural differences in order to deliver cross-cultural understanding as an integral part of twenty-first century existence. However, this view is not shared by convergency theorists such as Inkeles (1998). They suggest that technological, societal, and economic advances are eroding traditional values and national tendencies to such an extent that a unified, albeit emergent, world view has the potential to render our adherence to cultural differences obsolete. These contradictions again support the contention that values, both traditional and modern, are key to an exploration of cultural understanding.

70  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

During the 1960s psychologists such as Rogers (1964) identified “operative” values (action-oriented preferences) and “conceived” values (assimilated from others) in the context of value systems. He did not, however, appear to consider the impact of culture. Rokeach (1973, p. 7) was amongst the first cross-cultural study of values and value systems (in the US, Canada, Australia, and Israel), classifying “terminal” values (goals and aspirations) and “instrumental” values (morals and competencies). Rokeach found that “culture, society, and personality are the major antecedents of values, and that attitudes and behaviour are their major consequence” (1973, p. 326). The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995) identified fifty-six values and by 1995 had surveyed 25,000 people in forty countries. Seven cultural value orientations and ten individual motivational value types were identified, in addition to two universal dimensions organising value systems: “openness to change/conservation” and “self-transcendence/self-enhancement”. Differing from previous examinations of values, the study separated individual and cultural values for the first time. The World Values Survey (Inglehart et al., 1998) measured attitudes, values, and beliefs concerning politics, economics, religion, sexual behaviour, gender roles, family values, and ecological concerns from forty societies, representing seventy per cent of the population. Two dimensions were identified in 1997: “traditional/secular-rational” and “survival/well-being”. Focused on the effects of cultural change, Inglehart suggested that survival values shift towards self-expression values as societies develop economically, and identified new values including self-descriptions of tolerance, respect for diversity and the environment, and interpersonal trust. According to Bond et al., “Social axioms are generalised beliefs about oneself, the social and physical environment, or the spiritual world” (2004, p. 553). Social axioms incorporate individual responses within cultures and are an assertion about the association between two entities. The research found two new dimensions: “dynamic externality” and “societal cynicism”, reflecting survival instincts in societies characterised by poverty in the former, and the disruptive effects of social, political, and economic change in the latter. Despite the enormous contribution to intercultural theory, these studies based on values and values systems have seemingly had relatively little impact in the workplace. Studies of cultural dimensions

T h e b o dy o f l i t e r at u r e i n f o r m i n g t h e K ALEI D OS C O P E M O D EL   

71

(Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997; Hofstede, 2001, 2003) have been typically linked with studies of values and value systems (Inkeles & Levinson, 1963; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Ingelhart et al., 1998; Bond et al., 2004). This would seem to suggest that values drive cultural beliefs. As Hofstede suggests, “systems of values are a core element of culture” (2001, p. 10). A common thread among these studies appears to be the changing nature of these value systems that occur as societies change. This is apparent in China at the moment, as the younger generation enjoy unprecedented growth and wealth that may be at odds with the traditional value sets of the older generation. This means that leaders of global organisations need to keep abreast of the changing nature of the markets in which they operate. Yet, according to Schein, “Culture is a stabilizer, a conservative force, a way of making things predictable” (1992, p. 361). Schein points to the paradox of the need for leaders to be perpetual learners about cultural analysis, while their own culture is often contributing to the very decisions they make and informing an organisation’s culture. This illuminates the complexities of practising interculturally and of the need for models that can be simultaneously grounded, yet emergent.

Cultural dimensions The studies of culture that continue to have influence in the workplace involve large-scale quantitative studies that have resulted in categorisations of cultural norms, generally known as cultural dimensions. However, they typically do not address the meaning that an individual ascribes to membership of a particular culture. Most large-scale research programmes inform the coach of the tendencies of groups of people. While personal values may be said to be unique, those held collectively produce a “habitus, a system of permanent and transferable tendencies”, according to Hofstede (2001, p. 4). However, knowledge of cultural dimensions may inform the coaching relationship. It can be useful to understand the culturally bound responses of national groups, such as the tendency of Asians to avoid saying “no”, the German adherence to strict timekeeping, or the Spanish need to socialise before business, to quote just some examples. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) were among the first anthropologists to define universal dimensions of culture. In addition to

72  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

human nature, they classified differences in relation to nature, human relationships, activity, and time. Inkeles and Levinson (1963) adopted a systems approach to the integration of the personality and the sociocultural environment. They looked for universal characteristics of mature people along with common sociocultural characteristics of societies and identified the following: relation to authority, conception of self, and common conflicts and their resolution. The work of Hofstede (1980) is perhaps still the most referenced. By means of a cross-cultural quantitative survey, he measured work-related value differences between IBM subsidiaries in forty countries in 1980. He initially identified four cultural dimensions measuring the intensity and direction of values on a linear axis: power-distance, uncertaintyavoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Of all the Hofstede dimensions, perhaps the most widely understood is individualism/collectivism. Hofstede suggests that “it is closely linked to a country’s level of economic development” (2001, p. 211); therefore nations may exhibit greater individualism as they modernise. Triandis (2001) expresses this as being open to new experiences, independent, and feeling in control. Coaching, having emerged from an individualistic culture (the USA)—has a tendency towards goal and performance-oriented coaching processes in the workplace, perhaps originating from management by objectives (MBOs) (Drucker, 1954). This may not be applicable in cultures placing greater value on the success or well-being of the group, such as China. Furthermore, as the social behaviours, thought patterns, and communication styles between individualistic and collectivist cultures differ greatly (Fisher, 1998), this potentially causes misunderstandings that could be presented as issues in the coaching engagement. The masculine/feminine dimension explores the emotional and social roles of the genders. Cultures that are feminine in orientation, such as Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands, tend to emphasise relationships, environment, co-operation, and benevolence. A masculine society on the other hand, such as Japan and several of the South American and Northern European countries, puts more emphasis on competition and achievement. These tendencies are likely to be reflected in the approaches an executive may have to decision-making and teamwork. The importance of power-distance may impact the degree of nondirectional influence the coach is able to exercise when deference to authority is prevalent in a society demonstrating a high power distance

T h e b o dy o f l i t e r at u r e i n f o r m i n g t h e K ALEI D OS C O P E M O D EL   

73

indicator (PDI), such as China. It will also reveal the extent to which employees will demonstrate autonomy or refrain from taking responsibility. A low PDI score will indicate an egalitarian approach to decisionmaking, where it is expected that authority should be challenged or at least questioned by subordinates. It also perhaps provides an explanation for the tendency for the coach to be more directive at times, when engaging with people from high PDI countries. The uncertainty-avoidance dimension helps with an understanding of the cultural values associated with attitudes to difference, with those scoring high on the Uncertainty Avoidance Indicator (UAI) viewing difference as dangerous, and those scoring low viewing it as interesting. Those with a high UAI such as Belgium or France could exhibit anxietyrelated behaviour such as prejudice, traditionalism, superstition, and an intolerance of ambiguity. They may therefore expect others to adhere to the rules upholding these traditions. In business this could translate into dictatorial leadership styles and an overreliance on contractual terms and conditions. Low UAI societies, such as the United Kingdom, feel comfortable with ambiguity, and able to influence their own lives and those of their superiors or authorities. They may be more willing to take risks. Coaching could serve as a gateway to the exploration of emotions behind these values and the impact upon co-workers, especially when viewed from the perspective of the other party or parties. Bond (1983) later conducted the Chinese Value Survey that culminated in a fifth dimension: long-term versus short-term orientation. A longterm orientation is focused towards future rewards, whereas the short-term orientation is related to the immediate past or the instant gratification of the present. This dimension incorporated questions that reflected values such as filial piety, respect for tradition, unequal status in relationships, shame, and thrift, and reflected a mindset previously unattended to in the original Hofstede studies. This is extremely useful to those coaching people from “the East”, where these values are more prevalent than in “the West”. A sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint, was added by Hofstede et al. in 2010, comparing a society that puts little restraint upon the human need to enjoy life and have fun, with one that suppresses such a need and has developed social norms to restrict it. For example, the optimism of people from the USA or the emphasis on a social life in the UK may contrast sharply with viewing smiling as suspect in Russia or a lack of freedom of speech in Communist China.

74  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Others who have greatly contributed to the theory of cultural dimensions include Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997). Following fifteen years of research they identified seven cultural dimensions concerning the individual and the group (individualism/ communitarianism), a preference for relationships or rules (universalism/ particularism), status (achievement/ascription), relationships to nature (inner/outer directedness) and time (sequential/synchronic), involvement (diffuse/specific), and emotional expression (affective/neutral). They criticise Hofstede’s linear approach, explaining that cultures “dance” in circles and generate new meanings from otherwise opposing values.

The impact of cultural values on the self A person’s values can be restrictive, potentially being the source of limiting core beliefs, (Ellis & Harper, 1997). These can be expressed as culturally mandated imperatives such as “shoulds” and “oughts”. Trilling draws a comparison of culture—when expressed as a custom or mandate—to a prison, suggesting that it “lies like a weight” upon the prison house (1955, p. xiv). Hall argues that, “It is in fact a prison unless one knows that there is a key to unlock it” (1959, p. 182). Furthermore, Hofstede explains that identifying culture-related behaviour is difficult. He states, “It takes a prolonged stay abroad and mixing with other nationals there for us to recognise the numerous and often subtle differences in the ways they and we behave, because that is how our society has programmed us” (2001, p. 18). This is because our cultural values and beliefs are held subconsciously and it can therefore be incumbent on the cross-cultural coach to surface them. According to Hall, “Culture hides more than it reveals and what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants” (1959, p. 29). This means that the coach must be aware of the risk of making assumptions that are made from his own cultural lens. These acknowledgements can provide the coach with fertile ground for exploration as he seeks to raise culturally derived awareness, of both the client and himself. Yet it was identified in the literature search that there is still relatively little understanding pertaining to the internalisation of culture and the meanings attributed by individuals to cultural values and beliefs (Gilbert & Rosinski, 2008). From awareness, cultural meanings

T h e b o dy o f l i t e r at u r e i n f o r m i n g t h e K ALEI D OS C O P E M O D EL   

75

may be explored. Hofstede asserts, “awareness is where it all starts” (2003, p. 230). Thus it may be perceived from a review of the cultural literature that there are certain tendencies exhibited by people from different cultures, typically translated into cultural norms, which are changing. Furthermore, as individuals we are not always or even often aware of our own cultural influences. Raising these to awareness in the coaching relationship would help.

The relevance of systems According to Moran et al., “culture is a complex system of interrelated parts that must be understood holistically” (2007, p. 10). A CAS, according to Holland (2006), is a system that has a large number of “agents” that interact, learn, and are adaptive. An example of such is the immune system. Moreover, a multinational organisation characterised by global matrix structures and agile teams may be seen to fit these descriptions. These descriptions are important and are perhaps the reason for a departure, at least among interculturalists, from looking at culture through an “either/or” paradigm. A more nuanced approach is called for. As we engage more now with people from “the East”, we can perhaps see the value in taking a “both/and” perspective. Holding the complexity of sometimes opposing values and “both/and” positions may require some advanced skills and a willingness to consider the complexity within which the executive operates; although it should come relatively naturally to coaches coaching from an appreciative enquiry perspective (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Furthermore, Holland (2006) suggests that through adaption, innovation emerges. Adaptation often requires the redefinition of boundaries and adjustment to the environment, whether that may be political, economic, historical or cultural, or all of the above and more. Therefore, captains of industry need to find “lever points” or key areas of influence in the corporate system. This is sometimes found at “the edge of chaos” (Lewin, 1992). Once found, a coach can be instrumental in facilitating a leadership approach to complexity that seeks to build upon established techniques and to develop new ways of doing things. Thus, it may be seen that a systems approach incorporates the context in which senior leaders operate. It also reflects the complexity of the

76  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

global environment and the consequent need for agility, adaptability, and emergent solutions.

The roots of the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope development The literature review served as a guide to the development of the CrossCultural Kaleidoscope model and illuminated the need to approach coaching global leaders and intercultural teams from a systems and contextual perspective, and to use values and value systems as a guide. However, knowledge of cultural theory provides valuable insight, but not the whole picture. Gannon (2001) concurs, suggesting that the psychological impact of culture has been overlooked. The UK, for example, has a lower degree of emotional expressiveness (“stiff upper lip”) than the United States, although they score similarly on the individualism dimension (Hofstede, 2001, 2003). Furthermore, there is a tendency to evaluate dimensions on an either/or basis (for example, either individualist or collectivist, Western or Eastern), whereas, in reality, a person is often a complex mix, exhibiting different traits in different circumstances. As the following quotation substantiates, Osland et al. state, “Much of our cross-cultural training and research occurs within the framework of bipolar cultural dimensions. Whilst this sophisticated stereotyping is helpful to a certain degree, it does not convey the complexity found within cultures” (Osland et al., 2000, p. 65) The opportunity existed, therefore, to take cultural theory and norms into account, while acknowledging that our culture has distinct meanings for each and every one of us. As an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was utilised for the ensuing research method, continued references to literature added to the formation of the CrossCultural Kaleidoscope model.

Part II Building competencies

Introduction TO PART II

T

his part of the book is for those practitioners and educators who wish to delve further into the topic and to develop themselves further in the intercultural sphere. The initial chapters look at the tools and techniques that the crosscultural coaches in the research study are incorporating into practice and suggests that whilst there is no one model that provides an ideal solution in an intercultural situation, there is certainly a requirement to bring the culture concept into awareness, which the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope can assist with. Through techniques such as the modification of awareness and unlearning, the global executive coach may generate understanding in the coaching relationship. The latter chapters in this section provide insight into the backgrounds, qualities, and aptitudes of cross-cultural coaches. The material contained herein is extracted in part from published papers (Plaister-Ten, 2009, 2010, 2011). Where “the research study” is cited, this refers to the research conducted as part of an MA degree in Coaching and Mentoring Practice (2008).

79

Chapter Eight

Building culturally derived awareness and culturally appropriate responsibility

This chapter focuses on: • raising cultural awareness in the coaching relationship • taking culturally appropriate responsibility • the dangers of over-reliance on Western models. Working with cultural awareness in the coaching relationship seems to be conducted at the crossroads where psychology and culture meet and where cultural meanings may be explored. The skill of the crosscultural coach is in helping the coachee to identify which meanings they have attached to—and their consequent behaviours—that no longer work for them, given a change of context. This will invariably involve an element of “unlearning”, which would seem to be a key skill for the twenty-first century coach.

Key contemplation From awareness, cultural meanings may be explored.

81

82  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Raising cultural awareness As mentioned, raising awareness of the deeply held values and beliefs within the cultural self is critical to any cross-cultural coaching engagement. This therefore suggests that the essence of good cross-cultural coaching is to raise culturally derived awareness in the coaching relationship. Owing to the need to take cultural mandates into account, it is suggested that the job of a cross-cultural coach is to facilitate the coachee to take culturally appropriate responsibility thereafter. This is not as straightforward as it sounds. The findings of Plaister-Ten (2009) and the subsequent testing of the Kaleidoscope model in practice suggest that coaches find it useful to have a “trigger”—both for themselves and for their coachees—which assists with the raising of awareness to the culture concept, either before or during the coaching engagement. If we as coaches accept that culture is hidden, deeply held, and complex, then navigating socially constructed cultural meanings represents a minefield with lots of potential to make pre-suppositions and assumptions. Culture as learned beliefs and values handed down by others could be seen as a measure of self-protection and preservation, manifested in customs. Yet, as we have discussed, as coaches it is essential that we do not impose our own cultural awareness, backgrounds, and cultural intelligence into the mix. This may appear to represent another paradox of cross-cultural coaching. The prerequisite of building knowledge and cultural intelligence can seem counter-intuitive to the need to then discard it. But this is necessary in order to engage in the relationship cleanly, without the risk of projection muddying the waters.

Key contemplation Whilst it is important to build knowledge about a coachee’s cultural norms, it is even more important to discard that knowledge before engaging in the coaching relationship. Fortunately, the research study identified several approaches that can assist with this dilemma.

The cultural hypothesis The first is the formation of a cultural hypothesis prior to attending a session where cultural complexities may be present.

B u i l d i n g c u lt u r a l ly d e r i v e d awa r e n e s s   

83

Excerpt from research “I have in my mind a hypothesis about which cultures have which values in common, so that I go to a session with the knowledge of different cultural meanings.” —South African coach living in the UK The cultural hypothesis draws on knowledge of cultural theories, values, and norms. It may be supplemented through the development of cultural intelligence (CQ).

Cultural intelligence (CQ) The body of research behind CQ has examined why some individuals are more adept at moving in and out of multiple and varied cultures, whilst others are not. CQ therefore has a performance-orientation. How do individuals translate their knowledge into high performance? Based upon the concept of multiple loci of intelligences (Sternberg & Detterman, 1986), cultural intelligence suggests a four-step approach to building effectiveness as a global leader (Livermore, 2015b): • Drive: What confidence and motivation do you have for an intercultural assignment? • Knowledge: What information, systems, values, and beliefs do you need to understand? • Strategy: What can you do to increase your awareness of and assumptions about another culture, and how can you plan for intercultural situations? • Action: What do I need to change about my behaviour and communication style—either verbally or non-verbally—so that I can be more effective in a variety of cultures? The Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) provides an overview of an individual’s own ability in the four factors of CQ. A multi-rater assessment is also available to provide a richer picture based on observer assessments. Concurring with my own research (see Chapter Ten), the quality found to be most consistent with intercultural effectiveness was “openness”. Openness is one of the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McRae, 1992) and is therefore, it could be argued, inherent within a person—or not. Combined with coaching, models like CQ, the Thunderbird Global Mindset Inventory (GMI), and The International Profiler (TIP) from WorldWork, can provide a developmental route map for intercultural

84  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

effectiveness. However, whilst these models advocate a keen sense of self-awareness of one’s own cultural influences and bias, they do not appear to make suggestions as to how to handle the fact that in a coaching engagement it is considered to be best practice for coaches not to “contaminate” the relationship with their own perceptions, opinions, and knowledge, which can often be built up through the administration of such tools.

The neutral space In cross-cultural coaching, whilst it is essential to build up one’s knowledge of the impact of different cultural influences, it is even more critical to avoid the projection of assumptions or stereotyping. Therefore, the coach must make a point of putting all of this to one side: parking the knowledge. This is not a new concept and most coaches are adept at bracketing and fully aware of the risks of projection. However, in cross-cultural coaching this is even more important. One of the most effective ways of doing this appears to be through the “neutral space”, as explained by one of the research participants.

Excerpt from research “The neutral space is that I must make sure that my own views don’t bias my interpretation of what I am listening to. I never think about a culture as being good or bad; I just think of it as different.” —South African coach living in the UK The neutral space seems to be about creating a safe space for the cross-cultural engagement. It appears to be much more than bracketing or simple self-awareness. Rather like the state of forgiveness, it holds opposing views in abeyance to surrender to the higher purpose of peace, stability, harmony, or grace. It requires advanced skills such as suspending belief—a technique that was mentioned by an American coach—refraining from letting instincts run wild, and letting things be—which was mentioned by several participants.

Coaching tip 1. Build up your cultural knowledge. 2. “Park” your knowledge. 3. Create a neutral space.

B u i l d i n g c u lt u r a l ly d e r i v e d awa r e n e s s   

85

Another participant mentioned holding different cultural values lightly as a way to neutralise the space. This, for me, created imagery of “rising above the issues”. It was felt that in doing so, this enabled growth beyond the constraints of one’s own cultural perspective, as the following quotation illustrates.

Excerpt from research “I bring a neutral and bigger picture understanding or perspective on choices that can help to expand people’s horizons in terms of cultures.” —Canadian coach based in Hong Kong One of my research participants went even further, to suggest that the neutral space is not only a non-intrusive space, but that it is characterised by an intense feeling of service to another: cariño—which translates literally as love.

Excerpt from research “It appears to be a non-intrusive space characterised by different energies or cariño: love or tenderness for the benefit of, or in the service of the other.” —French coach Coaches will have their own approach to the neutral space and must be prepared for this to take time to develop. What seems to be clear is that with repeated and extended dealings in other cultures, an accumulated cross-cultural skillset may be developed, of which the neutral space is a key element. A coachee with a lack of self-awareness about the impact of culture upon the issue may be misappropriating blame, therefore displaying signs of being victimised or even persecuted: “‘They’ are doing this to me.” At the other end of the spectrum, a highly culturally aware coachee may be using cultural identity as a defence mechanism: “It’s because we have always done it this way.” An effective cross-cultural coach not only facilitates raised awareness but works with the coachee to identify how culturally mandated beliefs could be impacting the issue. According to Naranjo “An appreciation of actuality, awareness and responsibility constitute the core attitudes of Gestalt therapy”

86  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

(1993, p. 7). Similarly, Law et al. (2007) suggest that Gestalt coaching generates awareness through coaching support that may be appropriate across cultures. The coach that is truly present in the moment can offer intuitive understanding and awareness of the client’s reality and acceptance of a person as he is, which, paradoxically, may lead to growth.

Key contemplation Full acceptance “as is” can lead to growth.

Reflecting back The Gestalt technique of reflecting back is a wonderful tool for raising awareness in all types of coaching, not only interculturally.

Excerpt from research “One of the things that is really helpful is to reflect back—not just what you are observing but feeling at the time, then see if that has resonance for them and allow them to own that.” —South African coach

Putting yourself in another’s shoes The Gestalt technique of “putting oneself in another’s shoes”, also known as “Chairs”, (Rogers, 2004, p. 146) was cited by several participants. When it comes to raising the awareness of the coachee to the cultural mandates that could potentially be influencing his life, a keen awareness of self and “other” is required. Putting oneself in another’s shoes is a key tool in this respect.

Excerpt from research “I ask them to step into the other person’s shoes; usually I’ll have them change position so that they’re feeling like they are that other person and then they’re saying ‘I’ as if they are that other person.” —Canadian coach

B u i l d i n g c u lt u r a l ly d e r i v e d awa r e n e s s   

87

In my coaching experience so far, this has been one of the most powerful techniques for raising awareness to differing and competing perspectives and conflicting parts of self. The meta view afforded by this technique develops understanding of the complete picture and also provides for integration of the selves. It is particularly useful in an intercultural situation because, rather than blame and attribution, it leads to an increase in understanding that alternative perspectives may exist. “The elephant and the giraffe” fable may help to illustrate the need to understand opposing positions further. It may be useful to keep this tale in mind when building diversity policies or simply working with people from differing perspectives.

The fable of “The elephant and the giraffe” A giraffe and an elephant considered themselves friends, but when the giraffe invited the elephant into his home to join him in a business venture, problems ensued. The house was designed to meet the giraffe´s needs, with tall ceilings and narrow doorways, and when the elephant attempted to manoeuvre, doorways buckled, stairs cracked, and walls began to crumble. Analysing the chaos, the giraffe saw that the problem with the door was that it was too narrow. He suggested that the elephant take aerobic classes to get him “down to size”. The problem with the stairs, he said, was that they were too weak. He suggested that the elephant take ballet lessons to get him “light on his feet”. But the elephant was unconvinced of this approach. To him, the house was the problem. There are lessons to be learnt from the interaction between the giraffe, as the insider, and the elephant, as the outsider. The first is in the assumption that an elephant is the same as a giraffe. If the giraffe was serious about diversity, he could have built his house to accommodate outsiders. Second, tension and complexity are to be expected. And finally, the third and biggest moral from the story, both the elephant and the giraffe must be prepared to move outside their original comfort zones to view the situation from the point of view of the other. (Adapted from Thomas & Woodruff, 1999)

88  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Taking responsibility We have so far examined the need to raise awareness to the impact of culture in coaching. When it comes to taking responsibility, the situation becomes much more complicated. Not only is it necessary to identify what needs to be worked on in the “system”, as in the tale of the elephant and the giraffe, but, as mentioned, responsibility has different meanings in different cultures. Markus and Kitayama (1999) discuss the importance of understanding the impact of cultural mandates upon the self. In the context of taking responsibility, it is necessary to reflect whether this is an independent or interdependent proposition. In individualist cultures, where it is widely thought that people have control over their own destiny, self-determinism becomes the mandate, which can be at the expense of those who are less driven. In collective cultures, there is an allegiance to “other” before oneself. Significantly, as mentioned earlier in the book, this reiterates the need for cross-cultural coaches to appreciate that different cultural values lead to differing definitions of success. This factor can manifest itself in many ways. At the national level it can be reflected in the levels of trust in society or national pride. Trust can be built into a society and manifested by the legal system, expectations, or custom and practice:

Excerpt from research “German trust is based on Fach Competenz: specialist competence and knowledge.” —British coach based in Germany Similarly, a lack of trust may be endemic and become manifest at a societal level:

Excerpt from research “Brazilians don’t trust anyone; there’s a big absence of trust in this society.” —Austrian coach based in Brazil At an individual level, it can show up in differing behavioural traits. The Chinese value of harmonious relations for example, as in the quote

B u i l d i n g c u lt u r a l ly d e r i v e d awa r e n e s s   

89

below, reflects the importance of self-control contributing to the success of the community, whether family, organisation, or society. This means that much time needs to be devoted to exploring both the personal and the extended relationships when working with the mainland Chinese people.

Excerpt from research “You have to let them feel that you really put relationship on top of the work. And then that can get them to meet the goal.” —Chinese coach At the organisational level, it can manifest itself in differing business objectives, which as executive coaches we must be aware of. Hofstede (2010) has found, for example, that approaches to problem-solving and priorities vary widely around the world.

Choice From a Western perspective, the notion of taking responsibility appears to be predicated upon the notion of choice. When we are co-creating options with our clients we are often working from this premise. Now consider working with a client who does not have the same choices, owing to cultural and/or religious beliefs that demand a certain code of conduct. We are not going to be respectful of this situation if we insist that the client has a choice. Some cultures are more fatalistic or deferent than others, and people may be obligated to take guidance from an alternative source, such as elders or superiors, in those cultures where power distance (Hofstede, 2001) is high, or where religious or spiritual beliefs are deeply held. Yet, “designing actions” is a core coaching competency, according to the International Coaching Federation (ICF) and “outcome and action orientation” is a core competency according to the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC). Within both of these competencies, evaluating options is listed. Evaluating options is usually the antecedent to choice, brought about through increased awareness. Once a choice has been made, we typically expect action to be taken and indeed the GROW coaching process, (Goal, Reality, Options and Will) is built on this premise. Imagine coaching someone who does not have the choices that you have. What would you do?

90  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Key contemplation Choice is not a universal right.

Modification of awareness It may be more appropriate to consider working at the level of modification of awareness, rather than change. This represents a subtle yet important difference of approach that can accommodate the nuances of culture. It is a central tenet of this chapter that modifying awareness is a more appropriate construct when the coach is required to work with sensitive issues that are culturally mandated. This central tenet is key to the assertion that Western models that focus on goals and action are inappropriate across all cultures and may need to be reframed.

Key contemplation Modifying awareness may be an appropriate construct when working with culturally mandated issues. The following is a moving story of the modification of awareness. In this tender example the word “change”, has been described as “helping her to take a stronger part in her life”. Such are the nuances of the influence of culture.

Excerpt from research “Spain being incredibly Catholic and given the scepticism that rules in France over religion, I sensed as a coach that she had an opportunity to take a little bit more the reins of her life than just cuddle in the love of God. I asked her to describe her emotions and what she was getting out of this cuddle in the arms of God. I suggested an exercise of an active dialogue with God, what would she be asking from God, what would she be trying to acquire—which would be more dynamic than just cuddling in the arms of God. This was a difficult cross-cultural and more than cross-cultural, cross-religion exercise—a form of cross-cultural.” —French coach working in Spain

B u i l d i n g c u lt u r a l ly d e r i v e d awa r e n e s s   

91

The dangers of imposing Western processes and models The implications of the observations made in this chapter for the coaching profession are wide. They suggest that coaching training evolves from its focus on goals and a view of responsibility that promotes selfdeterminism at the possible expense of the greater good. Potentially, a movement away from this emphasis is underway. So whilst Grant suggests that “coaching is necessarily a goal-directed activity” (2006, p. 187), Clutterbuck (2008), on the other hand, has recognised the need for a goal-setting approach that is “emergent and adapted”. This shift in emphasis may be required in order to practise cross-culturally. Certainly, a systems approach would be a more cogent approach to accommodating broader systemic issues in context. One of my research participants who had worked in New Zealand, China, Austria, and Brazil warned of the dangers of imposing Western models and processes on the coaching engagement. She referred to underestimating the need to consider culturally held values:

Excerpt from research “Executive coaching is great, the concept that came out of the USA, but I think transporting a Western way of doing things and not taking into consideration other values, especially if you work with people who grew up in a different environments, can underestimate certain conflicts or potential conflicts.” —Austrian coach who has worked in New Zealand, China, Austria, and Brazil

Coaching tip A values elicitation exercise may help to identify what is important to the coachee and in what context, along with prioritisation. Identifying boundaries between work, family, community, and societal values may help to resolve any inner conflicts. Interventions are likely to be dependent upon priorities and whose opinion is most important to him at the time—his own, people at work, friends, parents, or a combination. The coach’s role in this case may simply be as a vehicle for raising the awareness to the conflicting values and the reasons for them. Acceptance may be enough for the coachee to realise where his values are serving him and where they are now holding him back.

92  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Any emphasis on the applicability, or otherwise, of applying coaching processes or models to culture seems to undermine the probability that the issue hosts the cultural dilemma. However, it may well be hidden or couched in other issues, or held sub-consciously, and likely to be presented within the issue, not necessarily as the issue.

When the issue hosts the cultural dilemma In my opinion, helping to illuminate issues that host cultural complexities are where a cross-cultural coach can add the most value to the coaching engagement. Take the following coaching example:

Coaching story Joy presents for coaching as the director of a division which is responsible for running a multicultural team. She is based in Germany. She says that one her English members of staff is having problems with a Dutch colleague but doesn’t understand why. Upon exploration it seems that the Dutch person is very direct and the English person finds this rude. Joy has missed this as she has become “acclimatised” to the norm of the direct communication patterns of mainland Northern Europeans. Once she has this level of awareness she is able to work with both of her team members to understand and be respectful of the perspective and preferences of the “other”. A tool called “the peach and the coconut” may be of use to the coach in the case above. It is a method of describing how people from different cultures react upon initial contact, with varying degrees of direct or indirect communication and depth of engagement. “Coconuts” are typically harder to engage with initially, but once you do you are met with warmth and depth inside. “Peaches” may be easier to engage with, but are harder to really get to know at a depth. However, situations such as the one described above may necessitate asking, “What does your culture mean to you?” or, “What does that issue mean for you in the light of your cultural values?” Moreover, the skill of the coach is likely to lie in eliciting meanings without asking direct questions, which may be too confrontational for some.

B u i l d i n g c u lt u r a l ly d e r i v e d awa r e n e s s   

93

Key contemplation The skill of the cross-cultural coach is to elicit meanings without asking direct questions, which may be too confrontational for some.

Clean language Nevertheless, there is a counter view from those coaches that prefer to practise using a “clean” coaching process. Clean language (Grove & Panzer, 1989), in its simplest form, reflects back to the coachee using the exact words and sequence, including body language. This avoids any interpretation that the coach may unwittingly place during translation, thereby contaminating the coachee’s “space”. However, clean language as a process can be quite cumbersome to the novice. To the accomplished coach, Grove’s work on emergent knowledge (Grove & Wilson, 2005) can yield insightful change.

Excerpt from research “We’re trying to get into his space so things can loosen up enough for something else to be happening than the usual.” —Clean language coach based in France



Use of metaphor According to Lawley and Tompkins, symbolic modelling facilitates an individual’s “discovery of new ways of perceiving themselves and their world” (2000, p. xiv).

Excerpt from research “We absolutely know that metaphors are specific to an individual. When he discovers his own metaphorical world, he’s discovering who he is and what his identity is and therefore looking for change. Now, they might be specific to an individual and then belong collectively to a nation, but I don’t have any evidence of that.” —New Zealander coach based in France



94  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Gannon (2001, p. 23) suggests that the cultural metaphor can represent values and attitudes, and a source of cultural understandings. However, some coachees may experience difficulty in eliciting metaphor and further difficulties in identifying their cultural source, if any. Drawing may help. During one interview with one research participant I noticed that I had a strong feeling of “beyond”. He spoke of working beyond language and nationality to use art and music as bridge-builders. Similarly, Hall (1959, p. xi) describes the future of the human race in turning diversity to advantage, analogous to leveraging the potential of music.

Excerpt from research “I am interested in exploring communication beyond language to find common understandings in art, music, and paintings amongst cultures.” —German coach based in France



This chapter has looked at the importance of raising awareness to the culture concept that may be embedded not only within the individual’s culturally bound orientation, but within the organisation or in society. One factor that seems to be largely overlooked by other studies of the culture concept in coaching, is that the cultural dynamic will often be resident within the issue. The skill of the cross-cultural coach will be in illuminating this. Whilst Western processes may not be appropriate as a universal approach, culturally mandated choice, goals, and responsibility should be a key consideration for the cross-cultural coach, often requiring reframing to accommodate emergent thinking. At all times, intercultural engagement needs to reflect different cultural values, aspirations, and goals, although coaches adhering to clean language would argue this is not necessary. Metaphor, art, and music have been identified as key tools where there may be language barriers. The following chapter delves further into the concept of intercultural understanding in the coaching relationship, and identifies the challenges of doing so along with some approaches and tips.

Chapter Nine

The call for cultural understanding in the coaching relationship

This chapter focuses on: • the complexities of seeking “understanding” • the importance of cultural values and beliefs and the difficulty of identification • the wide spectrum of beliefs amongst coaches about the impact of culture. According to research commissioned by the British Council, “employers place a high value on intercultural skills in the workplace” (2013, p. 19). The research has identified a link between strong intercultural skills and business benefits, such as increased productivity and sales. A  lack of intercultural skill, on the other hand, was associated with business risks, such as miscommunication and team conflict. The report stated (2013, p.9) that employers frequently define intercultural skills as “the ability to understand different cultural contexts and viewpoints”. Yet, seeking an understanding of cultural beliefs is difficult. Schneider and Barsoux (2003) compare the quest for cultural understanding with an exploration as deep as the ocean. A useful analogy is that of the cultural iceberg. Above the waterline lies visible culture. What we can see 95

96  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

may include customs, dress, buildings, food, rituals, and more, even the way streets are laid out or named. Those aspects of culture below the waterline include our thoughts, attitudes, emotions, expectations, values, and beliefs, many of which remain hidden, even from our selves. Those aspects above the water are more easily visible and understandable, whereas those beneath the water are intangible and therefore less easily understood. If two icebergs were to collide, the impact would be felt below the water line. As with culture, this is where the most damage may be felt and where the potential for clashes lies. On a collective level, the cultural self becomes manifest in cultural norms. Whilst customs, dress, art, dance, and music, even the influence of climate, are all expressions of cultural norms, below the waterline is where most clashes occur. Here lie values, assumptions, and beliefs. They are less widely known to be the expectations and rules that guide the behaviour of members of a culture and are often held subconsciously. As the following research quotation suggests, it is important to have an understanding of the cultural norms as a guide to the emotional state in which the coaching takes place.

Excerpt from research “You need to understand the norms, otherwise you can’t coach across cultures. You may not understand all the language or the nuances, but you need to understand the norms otherwise it’s very difficult. For example, Nepalese are all taught to make foreigners feel like the guest; to boycott a classroom is the ultimate insult to a foreign teacher. This would make them feel ashamed. If I didn’t understand that cultural dynamic then I wouldn’t have understood their emotional state.” —American coach working in Nepal

Working with values As mentioned, an examination of values is often a good place to start in coaching. Illuminating differing values can help with understanding differences. However, although values provide a signpost and an aid to decision-making, they can also contribute to limiting beliefs and prejudice, one of the social ills of our time. A person’s values can also be restrictive, potentially being the source of limiting core beliefs (Ellis &

t h e ca l l f o r c u lt u r a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g   

97

Harper, 1997). These “shoulds” and “oughts” are often passed on from societal and family expectations and mandates. As mentioned, awareness could be the key. Yet awareness does not necessarily imply acceptance. Similarly, acceptance does not necessarily imply understanding. The more we learn, however, about the cultural values that another person holds, the closer we get to awareness, acceptance, and/or understanding. Nevertheless, according to Fisher (1998), perhaps one of the key issues with potential for misunderstandings, is that differing cultural values lead to differing definitions of success. The following personal story illustrates this. As a British person I eat with a fork and knife. This comes from my value of good manners which was drilled into me as a child. My husband, on the other hand, eats with a fork and a spoon as he is from Suriname and that’s how they do things there. It bothered me that my son, who also prefers to eat with a fork and spoon, would continue this “bad habit”. I have had to open my mind to the possibility of there being more than one correct way to eat and not to see myself as a failure as a mother because I held a value about British table manners.

Differing values lead to differing emphasis on business goals This kind of example can be more impactful in a business situation. Hofstede et al. (2010), in a study of more than 1,800 MBA students at twenty-one universities in seventeen countries, found marked differences in perceived business goals. Perceived business goals means those that you personally hold to be the most important (as opposed to the ones that your boss or the organisation hold to be the most important). The international top five goals were growth of the business, personal wealth, this year’s profits, power, and continuity of the business, with China and Germany being the most dissimilar from the international average. China and Germany both placed “responsibility towards society” and “respecting ethical norms” in the top five, whereas these were typically found in the bottom five for other countries. China also cited patriotism, national pride, honour, face, and reputation as extremely important, and Germany placed responsibility towards employees, creating something new, and profits in ten years’ time as important.

98  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Perceived International top five business goals • • • • •

Growth of the business Personal wealth This year’s profits Power Continuity of the business —Hofstede et al. 2010, p.324

As coaches, if we are not aware of these differences in perspectives how can we possibly coach leaders in or from these contexts, or claim that coaching sits at the heart of corporate strategy? Fortunately, these differences are usually ironed out at the contracting stage of the coaching assignments—particularly where there is tripartite contracting between the coachee, the line manager, and the human resources lead.

Key contemplation Different cultural values lead to different definition of success. —Fisher, 1998, p. 63

Values-led leadership styles Several research projects have identified similarities in leadership approaches based on where a person comes from, confirming that culture affects leadership styles. The Globe Study (House et al., 2002, 2004) has identified similarities based on ten regions around the world: Southern Asia, Latin America, Nordic Europe, Anglo, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Confucian Asia. Whilst we might have intuitively suspected this to be the case, it is useful that a research study has substantiated it.

The difficulties of identifying cultural values and beliefs According to Moran et al., “intercultural communication is a process whereby individuals from different cultural backgrounds attempt to share meanings” (2007, p. 48). Cultural communication patterns, loaded with custom, practice, and belief, along with value-laden expectations, are acknowledged to contribute to misinterpretations in a cross-cultural setting. Significantly, however, it is the meaning behind this for the individual

t h e ca l l f o r c u lt u r a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g   

99

that appears to be unexplored. Triandis (1972) suggests that subjective culture is the cultural groups’ typical perception of norms, values, and beliefs. Yet in the coaching context, “how we carry culture inside ourselves, how it shapes our perceptions and choices in every situation, has remained relatively unexplored,” (Gilbert & Rosinski, 2008, p. 82).

Key contemplation It is the meaning behind the internalisation of culture that appears to be unexplored. —Gilbert & Rosinski, 2008 Hofstede explains that the difficulty arising from identifying culturerelated behaviour is because “it takes a prolonged stay abroad and mixing with other nationals there for us to recognise the numerous and often subtle differences in the ways they and we behave, because that is how our society has programmed us” (2001, p. 18). Hall states, “Understanding the reality of covert culture and accepting it on a gut level comes neither quickly nor easily; it must be lived” (1976, p. 58). This seemingly implies that to understand other cultures, it is necessary to live outside your own. Abbott et al. (2006) also point to the need to inform expatriate executive coaching by experience. My own experience substantiates this. It was not until I had come back three times from three separate postings to different regions of the world (Asia, the USA, and mainland Europe) that I began to understand the impact of my own cultural biases. This is further reflected in a quotation from Trompenaars and HampdenTurner (1997):

Key contemplation A fish only discovers its need for water when it is no longer in it. Our own culture is like water to a fish. —Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, p.20 Even though coaches may not be in a position to experience global mobility and may not have had international careers prior to becoming a coach, there are many advantages to seeking out overseas tenures

100  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

where possible. Not least of which is the ability to take a “meta view” of one’s own culture and its influence on one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviour. The quotation below refers to this process of “creating distance” to obtain a meta view. .

Excerpt from research “Living overseas allows me to create distance from myself and my culture because then I can see it as a separate thing.” —Canadian Coach living in Hong Kong Since 2008 a greater number of coaches have prefixed “global” to their titles. Global executive coaching seems to be increasingly common. If overseas tenures are a required competency for cross-cultural coaching, it is unlikely that it should become mainstream, because relatively few executive coaches have experienced the global business landscape firsthand. Yet we know that the leaders we are coaching are immersed in the forces of globalisation. We also know that purchasers of coaching prefer relevant business experience or organisational fit, a factor reported by the Ridler Report (Ridler, 2011, 2013). Therefore, it may be safe to assume that purchasers of global executive coaching would prefer coaches who have had relevant global business experience. This has dangerous implications for the coaching profession. I noticed a participant in a UK chat forum enquiring, “How do I coach a German?” Subsequently, I received the following email concerned with one of the largest employers in Europe:

Key contemplation I have encountered a number of Asian females who are perceived as not assertive or not displaying leadership qualities. It’s clear this is a cross-cultural issue, but people are reluctant to acknowledge this for fear of seeming racist. I feel it would be better if I had more specialist understanding. This would suggest that more understanding is indeed necessary. Asian females in the workplace (indeed, also Asian males) are typically not assertive because it is counter-cultural to them. In the UK we

t h e ca l l f o r c u lt u r a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g   

101

value assertiveness as a leadership quality and our education system develops this. In the workplace we expect senior or aspiring executives to display instantaneous, yet well thought-out, opinions and swift decision-making. Without wishing to make sweeping generalisations, which would be a crime in the context of this book, Asian people are more reflective, less vocal, and deferent to the senior person in the group; and they are taught to be so. Deference to age or knowledge is a key Asian value. Consequently, they are much less likely to be assertive than someone from the UK. However, again, culture is relative. Someone from the UK may not be perceived as being as assertive as someone from the USA. On top of this, competency-based assessments are often responsible for putting people into limiting boxes and legislation has deemed that highlighting and pointing out differences is somehow morally wrong and even racist. The counselling profession, on the other hand, sees this issue differently. Having asserted that equal treatment in therapy may in fact be construed as discriminatory treatment, Sue and Sue suggest that these issues should be brought into the open (2008, p. 45). Working with both parties in order to help them see each other’s viewpoints simultaneously could be the answer to this dilemma. But we do not often get the opportunity to work with the manager of the coachee beyond the contracting stage. Therefore, as coaches who are working with intercultural issues, we can best help the coachee understand the system in which he is operating. This means exploring both the corporate and functional cultures, and the prevailing host national culture, in comparison to his own culture. The coach must do all this, while understanding how cultural values and beliefs may be informing the issue, including his own. He also has to consider how they may impact his approach to coaching. One of the participants believed that she carried understanding with her, which was almost integral to her “cross-cultural suitcase”.

Excerpt from research “They perceive that I understand them. It could be my white hair; it could be my relaxed style; it could be my centeredness; it could be that substance we develop over time that helps us survive in our travels.” —American coach working in Nepal

102  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Wide spectrum of beliefs Research findings (Plaister-Ten, 2009) suggest that approaches to cross-cultural coaching tend to be influenced by the coach’s view as to how cultural beliefs and values are constructed. This demands a contemplation of the origin of his own cultural values and beliefs. It is possible that a coach believing that these values and beliefes are acquired during the socialisation process will raise them to awareness. Those that believe that values and beliefs are transmitted through the generations will similarly do so. However, the research illuminated the fact that there are some coaches who may be less inclined to explore cultural values and beliefs. Some coaches think culture is not a fundamental part of self or personality, and therefore should not merit enquiry in its own right. Others believe that it only has an impact when the coachee works and lives in a country other than his own (i.e., viewing culture at a national level).

Key contemplation Q:  How does culture affect coaching? A: We are unlikely to know unless we have closely examined our own cultural beliefs and values. During the course of semi-structured interviews, it became apparent that some of them did not label their activities as cross-cultural. In other words, they were “just coaching” and the context was irrelevant. On the other hand, some of them perceived cultural issues to be paramount in almost every encounter with diverse people, situations, or geographies, and even more so as globalisation persisted. These juxtapositions represented one of the huge paradoxes of the research study. If the coach, as many counsellors do, view it as an ethical obligation to include culture into the mix then they may see it as a fundamental part of the coaching engagement. This may imply that other key coaching considerations will not be addressed, which is of course highly unlikely to be the case. But to ignore it overlooks the fact that we are all affected by our cultural influences in some way or other.

Key contemplation Labelling the coaching can cause the cultural concept to be overemphasised or even overlooked.

t h e ca l l f o r c u lt u r a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g   

103

The following excerpts describe the varying viewpoints about the impact of culture on the coaches in the research study. The first describes a journey into cross-cultural coaching.

Excerpt from research “My way into cross-cultural or global executive coaching has been a long one—twenty years studying China in my case—having grown up as a Central European where we think we invented the world or history.” —Austrian coach practising in Brazil after a prolonged period in China As the following quotation illustrates it is possible to view most things through the lens of culture.

Excerpt from research “I see it in all kinds of places, whether it’s in a family or in a company; I see it everywhere. And to me I guess it’s all the same kind of cultural issue; it’s just maybe not the same as ‘Cultural issues’, with a capital C.” —American coach This contrasts sharply with the following viewpoint:

Excerpt from research “It only becomes interesting if he works and lives in a multicultural environment. Culture is just not the most important piece.” —New Zealander coach based in France Moreover, according to Matsumoto (2001), studies indicate six universal expressions of emotion: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. However, recognition of these emotions varies by culture, with different cultural mandates for emotional display. This may cause a challenge for the coach who relies on the interpretation of facial expressions for feedback. If as a coach you have become dependent on a set of visual codes or cues, you will not realise this until you are outside of your own culture, or working interculturally,

104  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

representing another conundrum: “The paradox of culture is that cues will become known only in a situation in which they won’t work” (Hall, 1976, p. 50). In other words, we are more likely to notice habits, behaviours and cultural rituals that are different from our own. All too often, this is then viewed as “strange”. Perhaps a further consideration in the quest for cultural understanding is the call for international awareness. One of the research participants saw the need for people to step outside their comfort zone to create this awareness. It could possibly be that shifts in mindsets are key to the challenges facing us in this century. Yet as we know from neuroscience we are wired to think in a particular way, especially around cultural groups.

Excerpt from research “People in the world are just so afraid to take risks. We need to develop more people that have international awareness, that get out of the silo mentality of being British, being American.” —American coach working in Nepal Fear, doubt, and uncertainty around difference seem to prevail, and legislation does little to help the situation. Whilst it is extremely difficult to identify culture-related behaviour, it is even more so to uncover cultural beliefs that are not your own. Perhaps though, if we take a lead from the counselling profession, we may see working with cultural differences in coaching as an ethical obligation and a pathway towards coaching for social integration. My own belief is that culture can be held emotionally in the cultural self. Cultural meanings are a part of a systemic process that define and guide us at a deeply held emotional level. Coaching is well-placed to work at the emotional level to elicit culturally bound subconscious meanings. Working at this depth paves the way for transformational coaching and for the “unlearning” of those cultural mandates that are restricting personal growth and causing social unrest. This chapter questions whether, as a profession, we are ready and fully equipped to deal with the complexities of global executive coaching, and highlights the risks of not being so. A heightened awareness of our own and others’ cultural values and beliefs is desirable

t h e ca l l f o r c u lt u r a l u n d e r s ta n d i n g   

105

yet difficult—especially when we have been educated in a way that reinforces our national values. Shifts in mindsets are therefore critical for dealing with the complexity facing global leaders that a systems approach can assist with. The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope is potentially a key tool for global executive coaches. It incorporates both internal and external factors and influences, which it is necessary to explore in order to coach to the depth that is required of us when we are working within the complexities of a global corporation, or a multicultural society or team.

Chapter Ten

Being a cross-cultural coach

This chapter focuses on: • the backgrounds of cross-cultural coaches • the qualities of cross-cultural coaches • the importance of reflection upon one’s own cultural background and learning from mistakes. In the previous chapters I have spoken a lot about the importance of understanding differing world views, and working with differing cultural complexities and cultural values. In this chapter there is an examination of the background, experiences, and qualities of the research sample (Plaister-Ten, 2009), and an illumination of some of the core qualities exhibited by the cross-cultural coaches in the study. The participants came from diverse backgrounds, including training, business, human resources, education, consulting, career coaching, psychology, and finance. Others cited several career changes in multiple countries, as the following research quotation suggests.

107

108  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Excerpt from research “I have had multiple careers in multiple countries—in the UK, Canada, and Thailand—in training, recruitment, consulting, and coaching.” —Canadian coach living and practising in Hong Kong Interestingly for me, as it mirrored my background, four of the partici­ pants had international sales and marketing backgrounds. This had contributed towards an interest in, and understanding of, differing values and beliefs for them. It also led me to integrate a consideration of values into the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model, as both enduring and changeable, and, paradoxically, sometimes both at the same time.

Excerpt from research “An international sales and marketing background has helped me with understanding the challenges that shaped values and beliefs.” —French coach having lived and worked in Mexico, Italy, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, UK, and Hong Kong Geographical mobility and international working remits appeared to contribute very strongly towards a cross-cultural orientation. Working amongst multicultural groups or foreign corporations contributed to a flexible approach towards working with different mindsets and a willingness to examine what is imbued within the culture.

Excerpt from research “I have had extensive experience of working with different mindsets and examining cultures. I have worked in or had responsibility for sixteen countries and done market research in thirty countries—so I was already a social observer and there were clear cultural differences.” —South African coach having lived and worked in four countries in three continents When a person has worked with so many different cultural mindsets and had multiple experiences of adapting to new ways of being, it can have the impact of feeling “turned inside out”, so that naturally the person identifies more with those who have shared these experiences. This extensive experience extended to the point where some actually

b e i n g a c r o s s - c u lt u r a l c oac h   

109

found it hard to function in a monocultural environment, as the following quotation illustrates.

Excerpt from research “Actually—that’s why I’m starting to laugh—I have greater difficulty dealing with people who have no other cultural dimension than their own. I find it much more difficult to coach someone really parochial. I would say that there are two types of people in the world: those who have left home and those who haven’t.” —South African coach living in the UK Other factors contributing to an intercultural orientation included the fact that the coaches in the study were typically in mixed marriages or were offspring of mixed marriages. Moreover, even their age, political views, historical legacies, and the witnessing of political and social inequalities, such as apartheid or disability, had an influence. Yet there were still other determinants that in some cases extended back into childhood.

Excerpt from research “I felt my father gave me a strong sense of, ‘There’s a world out there.’ I remember him saying, ‘I’m a citizen of the world.’” —American coach living in New York talking about her parents’ experiences as immigrants. This resonated with me, as “world citizen” is my own self-description. Although I originate from a small town, I nevertheless developed a sense of, “There’s a world out there,” as reflected in the following personal story. Growing up as a child of divorced parents in the 1960s I felt “different”. Divorce in those days was rare and I wanted to get away from judgements and out of “smallville”. I wanted to travel, see the world, and build on my love for learning languages. I moved with various jobs to Sheffield, to London, to the USA, back to London, to Asia, and came back many years later via the Netherlands with my husband and child. This is a sequence of events sometimes described as “restlessness”, or “escapism” by people choosing to remain in the UK.

110  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

This synergistic experience with some of the research participants led me to reflect upon the possibility of a disposition to cross-cultural coaching as characterised by innate personal qualities.

Key qualities of cross-cultural coaches The research study illuminated that there do indeed appear to be key aptitudes that a cross-cultural coach draws upon. These innate qualities—challenging assumptions, remaining open, capacity for change, and tolerance for paradox and ambiguity—seem to contribute towards accumulated cross-cultural wisdom, a term used by a French coach.

Key contemplation Cross-Cultural aptitudes contribute towards the accumulation of cross-cultural wisdom.

Challenging assumptions As in all coaching assignments, there are real dangers of making assumptions too quickly. In cross-cultural coaching, the need to avoid this is even greater as it can lead to cultural stereotyping. With increased knowledge about cultural dimensions and norms there is a further risk of “sophisticated stereotyping” (Osland et al., 2000). This can mean that more time is required to check understanding.

Excerpt from research “I think in cross-cultural coaching, the biggest mistake is to assume you understand the other person’s experiences more quickly than you should. If I’m not careful I will assume that I know exactly what they mean when actually I don’t.” —American coach working in Nepal The following quotation describes challenging assumptions as a seemingly turbulent experience, along with the need for the coach to be adaptive and flexible. It also describes the need to adapt to the other to create a more trusting relationship.

b e i n g a c r o s s - c u lt u r a l c oac h   

111

Excerpt from research “I was challenged in my own assumptions and it was demanded from me that I would speak to them in terms acceptable to them and that I would adjust to their culture.” —French coach The generation of trust was mentioned by several of the research participants and, as we know, trust is a fundamental requisite for any relationship. The following highlights this need. In this example, it was achieved thanks to the coach’s willingness to surrender any preconceptions.

Excerpt from research “I have a Franco-French client in a Franco-French company, in a Franco-French environment, and we’re talking about black panthers, doing weird things like asking the same question six times. And I’m a Kiwi … Where does that trust come from? I don’t know why that happened yesterday. All I know is that my own preconceived ideas were proven incorrect.” —Bilingual New Zealander Coach living in France

Remaining open Being open is a state of being that precipitates non-judgemental tolerance and respect. One participant specifically mentioned the possibility of a predisposition to openness.

Excerpt from research “There’s something in us that wants to question. So, for example, as a child attending Catholic school in Queens, New York, right on our same block there were Jewish people and my very good friend was Jewish. I remember my brother telling me that the Jews don’t believe in the Catholic church, and in school when the nuns would tell us that Catholics would be going to heaven and at the time they were kinda saying no one else was. I thought, ‘Why isn’t my friend going there? She needs to go there too; I can’t be going there without her?’ So it predisposed me to maybe understanding a different point of view.” —American coach

112  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Others expressed it as curiosity. Interestingly, “Aristotle thought curiosity was the uniquely defining property of human beings,” according to Nisbett (2005, p. 4). Openness was regarded as the prerequisite to curiosity by one of the participants:

Excerpt from research “To be open in mind and heart; when I’m open, I’m curious and not to judge or at least to be conscious—aha! I did it again!” —German coach living in France Whilst one of the other coaches saw curiosity as a route to objectivity which is free from ego:

Excerpt from research “Remaining true to the state of curiosity, objective and ego-free.” —American coach living in Nepal

A large capacity for change The participants represented “seasoned” coaches and global citizens who had experienced a lot of change; they loved the thrill of new and exciting assignments or countries, and often abhorred routine. Yet, as one of the participants living in Nepal explained, this is sometimes perceived as unreliable, escapist, and even disloyal by those choosing to remain rooted. This I have reflected upon in my own personal story earlier in this chapter.

Excerpt from research “Nobody knows who I am or what I’m doing and I have a fairly large capacity for handling that state-of-being. Security and predetermination don’t always make me happy. I’m out here always living on the edge.” —American coach living in Nepal

b e i n g a c r o s s - c u lt u r a l c oac h   

113

One of the respondents explained that the richness of working amongst diverse viewpoints may be used to harness creativity and innovation of thought.

Excerpt from research “It’s very exciting to me, to work in different cultures; it’s like exploring new territories, new ways of thinking about things, and looking for gold in that.” —Canadian coach living in Hong Kong

Tolerance for ambiguity The cross-cultural coach appears capable of flourishing in situations that some would find untenable. Being able to thrive without a comfort zone brings with it the ability to handle seemingly opposing mindsets, often simultaneously.

Excerpt from research “Tolerance and intolerance, again from my upbringing; my brother had a disability and other children were very cruel. I was horrified at the way they behaved, and angry, why would they be this way to him? Maybe it’s a good thing if early on you have noticed that people are not like you and that some bad things are happening as a result.” —American coach living in New York

Working with paradox As Hall (1976) explained, there is a huge paradox for those working with the culture concept. This is owing to the difficulty of understanding it, without first stepping outside of it. It seems that operating interculturally is laden with paradoxical situations. The research illuminated several key paradoxes of cross-cultural coaching, such that the ability to cope with ambiguity became one of the key qualities of a cross-cultural coach. It seems that to be tolerant of differences, it is necessary to confront intolerance; to be open, it seems

114  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

necessary to experience closed-mindedness; and to understand difference, it seems necessary to first contemplate universality.

Key contemplation • To be tolerant, it is first necessary to experience intolerance. • To be open, it is first necessary to experience closed-mindedness. • To understand difference, it is first necessary to contemplate universality. The following quotation appears to summarise this very well.

Excerpt from research “We have to think in terms of ‘no difference’ between nations, but at the same time we say ‘respect the difference’.” —German coach living in France

Coach’s self-awareness Cultural self-awareness was brought about by means of reflective analysis for one of the participants. She talks of a need to raise consciousness to matters which were held at a subconscious level.

Excerpt from research “Every time you step into a different culture, you have to re-analyse everything. You become aware of yourself and all these background beliefs, decisions, and choices which you’d never have considered before, until you suddenly find out there’s a whole country where people don’t think of it that way.” —Canadian coach living in Hong Kong Hofstede warns that when working with diverse “mental programs that have been in place since childhood, it is imperative that we are aware of our own cultural biases versus the culture of the client” (2003, p. 100). Some participants specified that reflection upon their cultural self-identity was necessary, as distinct from the reflective practices they ordinarily pursue.

b e i n g a c r o s s - c u lt u r a l c oac h   

115

Excerpt from research “In a new culture you think, ‘What’s the matter with these people?’ And then after a while you begin to realise it’s you—your perspective on that.” —South African coach living in the UK One of the participants spoke about past influences and of learning to become comfortable with the history of his country of origin (Germany) by accepting the shadow self or the hidden subcultures of self. According to Casement (2006), the shadow in Jungian theory is activated through the projection of negative feelings. The coach must be careful not to project these feelings into the coaching relationship, and may therefore need to set some boundaries in this respect.

Key contemplation There is a need to reflect upon our own cultural influences, regardless of where we are from. The research informing The International Profiler from WorldWork has identified twenty-two dimensions grouped into ten overall competency headings, and measures the emphasis or energy that a person applies to working in an international or cross-cultural context. Amongst these are openness, flexibility, personal autonomy, emotional strength, perceptiveness, active listening, transparency, cultural knowledge, influencing, and synergy. There are other such tools, including profilers from the Cultural Intelligence Centre (CQ) and the Thunderbird Global Mindset Inventory (GMI). Perhaps the one thing these profilers have in common is the suggestion that a degree of meta-cognition is essential when working across cultures. This is the ability to step back and make an objective self-assessment of one’s own impact on a situation, whilst simultaneously valuing alternative perspectives.

Learning from mistakes It seems that operating cross-culturally is fraught with potential for error. Cultural differences appear to manifest themselves in the most unexpected of circumstances.

116  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

I remember getting frustrated and angry with one of my team in Singapore who disappeared almost every morning; yet I knew he was at work because his jacket was on his chair. The “jacket-onthe-chair trick” as I came to know it, was a well-known ruse to Singaporeans, some of whom would go for breakfast soon after they got to work. This represented normal behaviour in the context, yet was behaviour I could not relate to at the time. I often detected a state close to humility when participants reflected upon their own mistakes. This contributed to their learning and seemingly fuelled a desire to assist others, although my own experiences may have biased that perception.

Excerpt from research “I made all the mistakes and got all the scars myself. I had my crosscultural battles. I now support people on all the mistakes I made. I want to be the coach that I never had.” —South African coach now living in the UK Below is one of the biggest lessons I learned whilst working in Singapore. This took place within two weeks of my arrival and I was ill-prepared. Only when I returned to study the impact of culture did I begin to understand it. One of my first tasks in Asia was to create an Asia/Pacific strategy for the division I was heading up at the time. I called a prestrategy meeting with my team (Chinese Malaysians and Chinese Singaporeans). We agreed on our approach. In the meeting, hosted by my British boss, the Asia/Pacific President, two of my team went against our agreement and with the perceived wishes of the President. I later asked why but received no response. From my Western perspective this was wrong on many levels—and it caused a deep lack of trust because I felt disrespected. Only when I later started to study the impact of culture was I able to look at this from multiple perspectives, or lenses. I later appreciated the impact of power-distance at play in the scenario. Not only that, I was able to unravel issues that belonged not only to me, my boss, and my team members as individuals, but those that impacted us as a team at divisional, organisational, and societal levels.

b e i n g a c r o s s - c u lt u r a l c oac h   

117

A potential barrier to coaching people from different nationalities may be language. The preference that a coachee may have to be “culturally safe” suggests a propensity to select a coach from the same culture. But this could be the equivalent of working with cultural blinkers on. As the research suggested, there may be an advantage to being a foreigner:

Excerpt from research “The French are far more forgiving of foreigners than they are of their native countrymen and therefore we can get further. That’s a generalised statement.” —New Zealander coach living in France Furthermore, in the matching process, it may be assumed that coachees prefer to be coached in their native language. Again, this is not necessarily a correct assumption and may in fact limit the depth of the coaching engagement. It seems that being of a different nationality to the coachee could in fact be a useful tool.

Excerpt from research “It’s about being extremely candid—asking for clarification, even using the pretext as an excuse that I was not born and raised in their culture.” —French coach talking about coaching someone from Spain

Coaching tip Asking the following coaching question is a useful tool in an intercultural scenario, when awareness is required: Can you explain to me why this is important to you or impacts you so much? As I am not from your culture I may not have that understanding.

The transcultural personality Several participants spoke of socialising with all ages, colours, nationalities, religions, sexual orientations, political allegiances, and

118  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

professional backgrounds. This is more than enjoying social mobility; this breed of person sometimes finds it hard to function in a monocultural environment. This is reflected in a multicultural lifestyle that seems to evolve into a personality “type”.

Excerpt from research “It’s a way of being. People I spend the most time with are all from different cultures. So you get quite detached. It becomes like a personality instead of a culture—a transcultural personality.” —Canadian coach living in Hong Kong My own experiences again support this, as I am living in a multi­ cultural enclave in the middle of Oxfordshire. I am surrounded by people from many different countries, who have chosen to educate their children multiculturally at the European School Culham, where my son went to school. In conclusion, cross-cultural wisdom appears to grow incrementally over time and interaction with each new culture. Coaches, some of whom see it as an advantage to be from a different culture to the coachee, can provide understanding based on their own experiences of cross-cultural mistakes. Key qualities of a cross-cultural coach appear to be challenging own assumptions; remaining open; a large capacity for change; and tolerance for ambiguity, along with the ability to hold paradoxical situations in mind. These qualities reflect a transcultural personality. It is incumbent upon the coach to explore their cultural self-awareness to avoid transference into the coaching relationship. It may be advantageous to set some cultural boundaries, to bracket any preconceived notions, and to therefore engage in the coaching from a neutral standpoint. The following chapter explores the tendency of cross-cultural coaches to hold a web of linked values, such as breaking down prejudice and stereotyping, as well as social liberalism. In a collective allegiance to the greater good, cross-cultural coaches aspire to create new neural pathways, pathways which can create ways of being that foster harmonious relationships. In this way, cross-cultural coaching may be said to be an altruistic pursuit, striving towards making the world a better place.

Chapter Eleven

Towards collective intelligence

This chapter focuses on: • the “self as an instrument”: directional versus non-directional cross-cultural coaching styles • the importance of the coach’s alignment to values and a higher meaning and purpose • coaching with collective intelligence. The constructive use of the self differs from coach to coach. Shapiro says, “Not only do I pick up cues, but I decode them, translate them and express myself. I am a message sender as well as a recorder” (1967, p. 235). This refers to the concept of the “third ear”: deep listening to the inner world of the coachee to offer feedback when appropriate. To some, this may be construed as directional coaching. Nevertheless, in a cross-cultural context, this appears to differ from directional coaching because the way this is done depends on the quality of the relationship, and the individual style and background of the coach. One of the participants explained “decoding”:

119

120  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Excerpt from research “For me, decoding doesn’t actually fit into coaching. It’s part of training, but it’s a very helpful thing to be able to do for a manager; when they’re trying to understand what the hell’s going on and they can’t get it out of themselves, they need information from outside their own system. So my decoding was, ‘This behaviour might be going on because this is typically what might be going on in a French person’s brain while you’re doing this’.” —New Zealander coach in France One of the research participants referred to leakage, which he explained as disclosing more of the coach’s personality to develop trust across cultures. Yet another referred to the practice of offering his own experience as a reference point:

Excerpt from research “I’m very, very conscious of my own take on things and I’ll usually present that in a cultural context. I offer my own perspective as a reference point and make it clear without switching into any kind of lecture mode; it’s like a buoy in the water.” —British coach based in Germany

Directive and non-directive coaching Whilst coaching from a Western paradigm is typically non-directive, one of the participants suggested that it may be inappropriate to be non-directive in some cultures, thus reinforcing the finding that a universal approach to coaching is unlikely to be effective:

Excerpt from research “The American coaching culture where coaching originated from is about not giving away a lot of information about yourself; I have found that this doesn’t work well in other cultures.” —Austrian coach based in Brazil Nevertheless, when asked the question directly, “Is your coaching directive?” most research participants stated a commitment to non-directional

to wa r d s c o l l e ct i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e   

121

coaching. However, I gradually formed the impression that there was more to this, owing to contradictions that emerged from the data. There appeared to be an inference from the data that cross-cultural coaches needed to have a broad repertoire of styles, ranging from non-directive on the one hand to directive on the other. For example, one of the participants could sound non-directive, describing his role as follows:

Excerpt from research “… presence, asking a few questions and being the dynamic mirror to the client; leaving the client to evolve almost by himself.” —French coach However, he could also seem less non-directive:

Excerpt from research “The cross-cultural essence of my role as a coach is to have been there before and be able to identify, during the cross-cultural conversation, areas which he might not be aware of, or important behaviours to be aware of—or potentially behaviours to avoid.” —French coach Moreover, in China a directive approach to coaching appeared to prevail owing to the impact of the power-distance dimension (Hofstede, 2001, 2003). The high power-distance implicit in Chinese society puts a high value on authority, status, and privileges, including titles and rank. As such, higher ranks take the lead in all matters; and interruptions are frowned upon. Asking, “Is your coaching directive?” to the Chinese coach, however, did not confirm this. It merely confirmed that the Chinese people seek direction from those whom they perceive to have a higher status in society.

Excerpt from research “Chinese people just want to listen, so you feel like a God. They tend to need more direction from us.” —Chinese coach

122  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Not only this, my Chinese colleague has explained that the meaning of coach in the Mandarin Chinese language is analogous to “teach”. So, very often, Chinese people may expect to be taught in a coaching engagement. Teaching is, by its very nature, directional. Significantly, it seems that power-distance can extend to placing a higher value on Western approaches, at least in Hong Kong.

Excerpt from research “It’s a higher status to have a Western coach than a Chinese one, but at the same time it might be more challenging for them. They really value Western culture, so they don’t care if it’s Australian or German or British or anything, just that it’s Western.” —Canadian coach based in Hong Kong Rigid adherence to tools and models can undermine the importance of the coaching relationship and the need to create a safe space, which could be more important in some cultures than others. Without patience and time, this could be extremely detrimental in a relationship-orientated culture such as China. DeHaan (2008) concurs, stressing the importance of building the relationship.

Excerpt from research “I spend quite a lot of time and then I will use different angles to explain things to them. So you really need a lot of patience. We have to explain things very, very clearly to them so that they know what to do.” —Chinese coach

Alignment to values Several of the research participants referred to the importance of a life aligned to values, in order to build trust and develop cross-cultural understanding. We often refer in coaching to the need to “walk the talk”. It seemed, though, that in cross-cultural coaching the need to demonstrate integrity and trust was very much more intense. This need for alignment appeared to be so strong that it illuminated an altruistic sense of purpose that was present in the work of the cross-cultural coach.

to wa r d s c o l l e ct i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e   

123

Excerpt from research “By living what I believe in it helps to build trust and integrity, not just in me as their coach, but in the process.” —Austrian coach This was further reflected as critical when working with modification or change processes, as the following example from one of the coaches illustrates. Here the participant mentions the need to constantly challenge herself to change:

Excerpt from research “You can’t know what it’s like to change unless you keep asking yourself to change. You can’t ask people to live a different life unless you continually challenge yourself to live the best life.” —American coach

Higher purpose and meaning Perhaps distinct from monocultural coaching, is the understanding brought into the coaching relationship by means of higher purpose and meaning. This is not suggesting that monocultural coaches do not have a higher purpose and meaning, but it is conceivable that the source of the cross-cultural coach’s values might be wider and perhaps exist on more levels.

Excerpt from research “I have articulated a lot of values that were linked—I hadn’t put them all together before—partly the political stuff, partly the crosscultural stuff. I had thought cross-cultural was second nature, and it is second nature because it is part of something bigger. What I know is that it feels like an integral part of me. The cultural thing is a part of a bigger whole—different religions and different political views. It feels meaningful for the times.” —South African coach

124  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

Interestingly, the Chinese participant saw helping the individual as contributing to society; perhaps an indication of his collectivist roots:

Excerpt from research “That gives me a meaning that I can contribute to society, to help society because the individual is a basic unit. I help the individual, instead of group training, when you really don’t know to what extent they understand.” —Chinese coach Although, this was also stated by the American participant as contributing to the “greater good”, and seemed to communicate a strong altruistic purpose.

Excerpt from research “It’s a core part of my being. When I accomplish that understanding across that so-called cultural line, that’s just very much something I like. I have a belief that the greater good is served by this understanding.” —American coach At other times it was expressed as a desire to break down prejudices:

Excerpt from research “I like to see it as playing a role to break through prejudice and intolerance, which is founded on pure lack of understanding or experience or exposure.” —British coach in Germany

Building bridges Rosinski (2003) talks of leveraging differences in terms of bridging cultural gaps by promoting unity in diversity. In this way, he suggests that differences may be synthesised for mutual enrichment. One participant spoke of building bridges by asking the parties involved to think differently, almost to explore areas of mutuality:

to wa r d s c o l l e ct i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e   

125

Excerpt from research “Getting one side to understand another—I’ve told them to think of themselves as anthropologists.” —American coach In the business context, that could point to best practice. Interestingly, one of the participants suggested that the route to best practice is through values elicitation.

Excerpt from research “So, through best practice, they will be reconnecting to their resources. When I ask about management style it’s to understand if they are aware that there are different kinds of management style. Also, I ask them about what is important for them in terms of values—very often asking them first about best practice, this will come out.” —German coach On a global scale this could point to “cross-cultural wisdom”, a term suggested by one participant to be a key requirement of twenty-firstcentury living:

Excerpt from research “There is a need for key players of this world to be wiser when it comes to cross-cultural issues. This applies to a broad spectrum of people, governments, businesses, and policy makers.” —French coach

Coaching with collective intelligence Cleveland (1982, cited in Jeyarajeswaren, 2006, p. 149) suggests that “wisdom is the ultimate level of understanding”. This is created by “building-blocks” of shared experience on a continuum of understanding. Cross-cultural wisdom may be manifest by a community of global executive coaches. These coaches are engaging in transformational conversations that build bridges, break down prejudice and stereotyping,

126  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

and engage in a diversity of views derived from differing value sets. The ultimate aim is to leverage synergy for the benefit of teams, organisations, and for the greater good of society. There are groups such as the Society of Intercultural Educators, Trainers and Researchers (Sietar)— with approximately 3,000 members worldwide—and the Delta Intercultural Academy (Dialogin)—a global virtual knowledge community on culture and communication in international business. Both communities exist for interculturalists to broaden knowledge, research, and awareness of intercultural dynamics, and to explore best practice in the building of intercultural bridges. Whilst an increasing number of coaches are joining these groups, the culture concept has still not made its way into mainstream coaching curricula. Global executive coaches will therefore have an increased need to develop the new neural pathways that illuminate the need to connect and share information. Furthermore, Moss Kanter (2011) suggests that in a process of Institutional Logic, leaders of great global organisations seek to balance public interest with financial returns and are therefore concerned to produce long-term societal value across the globe. This activity places emphasis upon employee engagement, empowerment, and values-based leadership. Moss Kanter cites as an example the formation of Novartis in 1996, which was formed through a merger of two Swiss pharmaceutical companies. By engaging in a global day of community service, they were able to embed the company’s mission and values in a way that was meaningful. Each local market decided how best it could serve its own people and contributed towards the future of the merged organisation. This has now become an annual event, held on the anniversary of the merger. The global executive coach has the opportunity to contribute towards building great organisations that are transforming the way we live. In another example, Moss Kanter points to the former CEO of Procter & Gamble, Robert A. McDonald, who built the purpose of his organisation into a business strategy: “To touch and improve a life each day”. This translated into purpose-driven goals, such as giving away nappies for visitors to health clinics in West Africa. Procter & Gamble forecasted at the time to add one million new customers over a decade, thanks in large part to the rise of the middle class in emerging markets. Current estimates of the growth of the “global middle class” are 3.2 billion by 2020, from 1.8 billion in 2009, and as high as 4.9 billion by 2030 (Kharas, 2010).

to wa r d s c o l l e ct i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e   

127

To accommodate what Robert A. McDonald called a “VUCA” world—standing for volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous— global executive coaches can strive to demonstrate: • a mindset that seeks understanding and aspires to break down stereotyping and prejudice • a desire to demonstrate how their own personal and professional experience reflects these values • the facilitation of coaching relationships that promote the values of inclusiveness and leverage synergies • a (global) social network that seeks to share knowledge, understanding, and best practice, and emerges collective intelligence • a passion for contributing to the “greater good” in whatever guise is appropriate: at the local community level, as an international political movement, or through belief in the Institutional Logic movement. This chapter has examined the techniques used to be adept in the crosscultural relationship, including the use of the self as an instrument. Living a life aligned with values and a higher purpose was seen in the research to be integral to the creation of cross-cultural understanding and wisdom and to create trust and safety. Working to leverage cultural differences by building bridges may be initiated by best practice and values elicitation. Corporate values must be built into business strategy and embedded in day-to-day business practices, and the global executive coach can strive to facilitate this. Cross-cultural coaches appear to be part of a collective community, exhibiting a set of behaviours according to the values of a collective intelligence that strives to build cultural understanding, break down prejudice, develop intercultural competencies, and to demonstrate cross-cultural wisdom.

Chapter T welve

Conclusions and next steps

This chapter focuses on: • exploring how we can work effectively with the psychological impact of culture as meaning in coaching practice • making sense of the landscape • the implications for the future.

Working with the psychological impact of culture Culture is such a complicated concept that it is easy to pretend that it is either not an issue or should not be. However, the psychological impact of culture as meaning has been largely overlooked. If construed as an ethical obligation and taking a lead from the counselling profession, the impact of culture would be viewed as necessary and emerge as mainstream coaching practice. This, in turn, would be likely to help with the problem of definitions. However, this position appears to be far removed from the reality of organisational life.

129

130  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

I have just returned from working with a large organisation in France with a cohort of aspiring international leaders. My cofacilitator is a highly experienced and talented executive coach and facilitator. We continue to struggle to make the international element of the programme resonate and have tried several approaches. This time we approached it at the level(s) of identity by means of a systemic constellation. This illuminated the dissonance for a French organisation, with a presence in some international markets, whose customers’ purchasing habits are universal and therefore potentially global, yet untapped. What I had not bargained for was my own reaction to the “Frenchness” of the programme design and to the mainly French participants when we were supposed to be delivering an international programme. My co-facilitator, seemed to become more “French”, although quite naturally so in a group of her own countrymen and women. I ended up feeling a complete outsider, alone apart from a Polish participant and a British lady, who made it clear that she was Welsh! This experience was “beyond language”; we were speaking in English. Thanks to reflection, I am moving on from an uncomfortable experience by exploring my own reactions. What has emerged are key differences in the following areas: • perspectives of the importance of looking back at the past • willingness (or lack of) to engage with detail, which can result in “talking versus doing” • direct and indirect communication patterns • a propensity for use of the words “I” or “we” • relative importance of and respect for the hierarchy and status • senses of urgency • respect for rules and process • reactions to what is perceived to be rude or polite behaviour. You can imagine, then, how complex these differences would become once you introduce not only different nationalities, but also different experts that are representatives of their respective functions (silos). So, I was shocked by my own frustrations. An emotionally intelligent response to this is to manage these frustrations. However,

c o n c l u s i o n s a n d n e x t s t e p s   

131

in the moment we are not always aware. I was reminded by my colleague of a famous quotation from Carl Jung: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” I need to keep remembering this quotation. As coaches, this is where we can really add value. Culture is hidden and it is hidden most of all from our own selves. Culture is also relative. Compared to most French people, I am very English. Whereas, in England I might be thought of as atypical. Working at the emotional level can elicit the meanings for the coachee or group. This requires working with the cultural self, in a context that brings the “outside in”. As with all coaching, this entails looking at what the coachee can influence, modify, or change. It begins with an understanding that we cannot change the other, only ourselves.

Making sense of the landscape Up until recently, cross-cultural coaching has been viewed as niche or a specialism or an intervention that is not necessary. This has contributed to the view that it is important to have lived outside one’s own culture to become culturally aware. This suggests that extensive overseas tenures contribute to an accumulation of cross-cultural skillsets that are likely to be demanded by global organisations and global executive coaching as a discipline. Whilst this may still be the case, it is conceivable that every coach needs to be aware of the possible impact of culture on the coaching issue. More and more global leaders and managers work with a multitude of cultures, either virtually or in their own multicultural societies. This is leading to a demand by global organisations for executives with global mindsets, and the ability to leverage different viewpoints for competitive advantage and future sustainability. It also means bringing the “outside in” in order to understand political movements, social and environmental issues, and demographic shifts.

The implications for the future This book has suggested an imperative: to raise culturally derived intercultural awareness and to facilitate culturally appropriate responsibility in the coaching relationship. Importantly, however, it would appear that the coaching profession is not preparing coaches to be able to identify issues that may be culturally imbibed and may initially manifest

132  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

simply as difficulties when working with a colleague. For example, communication difficulties with someone from a different culture, which are perceived to be “their fault”. As importantly, it is not encouraging coaches to be self-aware about the impact of our own culture. The coaching profession is lagging behind the counselling profession in this respect, which has made a call to embed transcultural considerations into the core training curriculum for therapists. Moreover, this leaves the coaching profession open to a diversity of interpretations and tensions between personality and the collectively held construct of national culture. This means that there is a lack of a cohesive definition around intercultural practice, with terms such as cross-cultural coaching, intercultural coaching, and global executive coaching being used interchangeably. Whilst the dominant cultural theorists (Hofstede, 2001, 2003; Trompenaars & Hamden-Turner, 1997) continue to be a reference source in business, there are more recent large-scale studies that can provide insight into how an individual compares with the prevailing norms in the dominant culture (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995; Inglehart et al., 1998; Bond, 2004) and the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004). In this era of globalisation it is likely that more and more of us will engage with people from a multitude of cultures and thus “sophisticated stereotyping” (a tendency by interculturalists and students of culture to characterise individuals according to their national cultural traits and cultural theory) is inappropriate and limiting. It is therefore suggested that a “both/and” paradigm is more appropriate. This means that managers and leaders need to develop a broader range of skills and must be able to cope with the paradoxical framework of a both/and mindset. It also means that coaches need to work with their coachees not only to understand the values and beliefs of “other” and “self”, but so that coaches themselves are able to understand the impact of their own cultural lens. It is important to realise that differing cultural values lead to differing interpretations of the meaning of words and definitions of success, and therefore lead to different business goals. An appreciation of theories of values and value systems (Inkeles & Levinson, 1963; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Rokeach, 1973) can provide a starting point in coaching as well as enable the cross-cultural coach to be more competent when working with conflicting values, which may arise as a result of globalisation. It can also help to realise that the more a person is exposed to a multitude of cultures, the more conflicted that person can become. Coaching can therefore work to help coachees “unlearn”

c o n c l u s i o n s a n d n e x t s t e p s   

133

some of the cultural values that no longer work for them given a different set of circumstances than when these values were first formed (often in the socialisation process). This again requires working at a deep level of the cultural self and the impact of culture on emotions. It is likely that the qualities that a cross-cultural coach draws on more frequently than a monocultural coach are: challenging own assumptions; remaining open; tolerance for ambiguity and paradox; and a large capacity for change. Knowledge of the cultural theory and norms is useful and can be used as part of a “cultural hypothesis” rather than absolute fact. Seemingly, there is a need for most cultures to feel safe; this can increase the duration of a coaching session, drawing on the patience and flexibility of the coach. Understanding, although necessary, appears to be intangible, possibly residing in the energy in the coaching relationship. The creation of a “neutral space” or state of being is key to disassociation from the cultural attachments and projections of parties in the relationship. Understanding was also said to be present in the intentions and higher purpose and meaning of the lives of cross-cultural coaches, linking a lot of associated values. An altruistic sense of purpose seems to prevail at times, along with a desire to contribute to the greater good. Cross-cultural coaches appear to be aligning as their collective intelligence serves to meet these ends and to meet the needs of global companies engaged in a process of embedding Institutional Logic (Moss Kanter, 2011). An appreciation that Western theories and techniques are not applicable to all cultures is a requirement, especially for those coaches interacting with people from the East. It is suggested that Western approaches to action, goals, choice, and change, inherent within an achievement oriented, individualistic culture, may not be appropriate in collectivist cultures that value harmony, stability, and relationships. Whilst Western processes may not be appropriate as a universal approach, culturally mandated choice, goals, and responsibility should be a key consideration for the cross-cultural coach, often requiring reframing to accommodate emergent thinking. There is a danger that international becomes synonymous with Western, potentially limiting possibilities for the fusion of Eastern and Western perspectives in the future. A systems approach appears to be the most appropriate for crosscultural coaching. This takes account of the cultural self and, with its roots in the theory of the dialogical self (Hermans, 2001), further acknowledges that there are a multitude of external influences that have an impact on beliefs, values, and behaviours, and therefore upon the decision-making of global leaders and managers of multicultural and

134  

T h e C r o s s - C u lt u r a l C oac h i n g K ALEI D OS C O P E

remote teams. The self changes over time and according to context, and identifying patterns may be difficult. Amongst teams, the identification of the threads can contribute towards team building, team effectiveness, and team transformation, and is particularly useful for remote teams. The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope is a model that has been created to take account of the fact that our culture has distinct meanings for individuals yet is subjected to influences and pressures from the external social environment as part of a complex adaptive system (CAS). The model has been used in practice by cross-cultural coaches and found to contribute to increased culturally derived awareness and to the facilitation of culturally appropriate responsibility. It has also been used as a team-building tool to facilitate the meaning and purpose of remote and multicultural teams. The model is not intended to be prescriptive and at its very least can provide a visual image of the complexity of the cultural concept for the global executive coach, whilst at its best it can be used as a problem-solving and transformational tool. A sample list of questions is provided along with its applications thus far. It is hoped that more applications may be identified and I therefore invite you to feedback your experiences in the use of this model so that we can contribute to the collective intelligence of intercultural coaching practice. Lastly, whilst it is preferable that we all seek to weigh the views of others whose cultural experiences diverge from one’s own, I am a Caucasian woman and my approach is likely to have been influenced by my socialisation in the West and the English cultural heritage of the 1960s. Although I have had extensive experience of working internationally, of living and working overseas, and am married interculturally, it is all too easy to unwittingly make mistakes, as was illuminated at the start of this chapter. One might argue, then, that a key skill is to have the humility to be able to say, “Aha! I did it again.” Such are the nuances, the frustrations, and the rewards of working amongst different cultural influences. I hope that the book has provided you with pointers as you take the next step on your own personal and professional journey, and that together we can contribute to the greater good as we seek understanding.

Closing contemplation Understanding ourselves and the world we have created—and which in turn creates us—is perhaps the single most important task facing mankind. —Hall, 1976, p. 222

Appendix One

A summary of the sample of coaches interviewed

137

Appendix T wo

Interview guide for the research study

The following is the broad outline and purpose of the semi-structured interviews, along with the questions that were asked as a part of the research study conducted in 2008. 1. How did you become a cross-cultural coach? Aim: to place the coach’s profession in the context of their life Q. Can you tell me about your work as a cross-cultural coach? (Training, experience, or interest) 2. What is it like for you, being a cross-cultural coach? Aim: details the day in the life of a cross-cultural coach, by reconstructing a typical session or series of sessions Q. Could you describe a cross-cultural coaching session that went well and one that didn’t go well? Q. What specific models, processes, or interventions do you use, if any, to develop understanding of the client’s worldview? Q. How do you work with a coachee’s cultural heritage, especially around beliefs and values that may be held subconsciously?

139

140  

a pp e n d i x t w o

3. What does it mean to you to be a cross-cultural coach? Aim: to reflect on the meaning attributed to cross-cultural coaching and to cross-cultural understanding in coaching Q. Do you use any reflective practices to raise awareness of your own cultural meanings, values, beliefs, or influences? Q. Do you ascribe any (other) meaning or purpose to cross-cultural coaching? How does that meaning impact on your practice? Q. As a result of this interview, is there anything you might do differently in your practice? Q. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Appendix Three

Sample of coaching practitioners, human resource professionals, educators, and students who have explored the use of the Kaleidoscope in practice

Job title

Country of residence

Nationality

Cross-cultural coach and supervisor

UK

British

Cross-cultural coach and supervisor

UK

French

Business coach and psychologist

The Netherlands

Dutch

Cross-cultural coach

Dubai

Swedish/ Danish

Executive coach

Hong Kong

Chinese

Executive coach

Germany

French

Executive coach

USA

Canadian

Groups of French executive coaches and student coaches: 60 people over a four-year duration

France

French

A group of 16 multicultural executive coaches and student coaches

Multiple

Multiple nationalities

A group of 30 executive coaches A group of (15) HR professionals A group of (45) coaching students

UK

British

141

Appendix Four

Reflective feedback sample from coach exploring the use of the Kaleidoscope in practice

Name/Reference No: 010 Date: May 2012 PARTICIPATION IN CASE STUDY RESEARCH CONCERNING VIABILITY OF THE CROSS-CULTURAL KALEIDOSCOPE FOR COACHING AND MENTORING PRACTICE Subjective account (Summarise feelings/perceptions during/after use of the Kaleidoscope model) (Both yourself and your coachee/mentee) Initially I thought it could be quite restrictive and structured; how could it not get in the way. But that turned out to be a pro to have a structure. Both of us (mentor and mentee) thought it was v. useful. Objective account (i.e., How did you use it? How easy/difficult was it to use and what was the outcome?) It took one hour to go through all of the headings (I was pleasantly surprised by that because I thought it would take longer). I went through them in order. There was some overlap with politics and religion for 143

144  

a pp e n d i x f o u r

example—but having said that it emerged more layers of detail when we got to religion. History came out of a lot of the sections and contributed to why she feels the way she does. We spent a long time on Economics about growth and opportunity. We also spent a long time on politics which had occurred due to the history (no government for 2 years and the last president got assassinated). Lots of turmoil that has made her resilient also an understanding that she lived in a protective bubble with a Christian community and with family and relatives. Business was done with who you know. The future is unstable due to large majority getting bigger and refugees being stateless. There are no employment laws. Politics has corrupted e.g. same family involved in civil law although things may change. Lots about being educated in a Bac system (rote learning, hierarchal and structured). This created less individualism and creativity and no encouragement to think for oneself. She then chose to go to UK system (creativity, less determined). Analysis of Incident (i.e. How useful/not useful you think this tool would be to you in your coaching practice?) It has given me a much deeper understanding of her as an individual and provided a depth of information that you would not normally get to and has greatly assisted with rapport-building. Normally you wouldn’t spend an hour doing something like this in a session. It has increased understanding (mine of her and her of herself), it has raised the client’s consciousness, and it has given her more choices about what she can take with her into her present and what she can leave behind. It has caused her to realise where her thoughts values and preferences have come from and provided a clearer view of herself. Personal learning (Did you as the coach learn anything as a result of completing this tool? What? Did the coachee/mentee learn anything? What?) It strengthens the quality of the coaching. I don’t know if during a normal session you would get to this depth. It is a good tool specifically for cross-cultural coaching. Its value is that it is open-ended. You could use just one or two questions in a session. Those questions that began with “tell me about” potentially have the most value. I would definitely consider using it with other clients especially in a situation where there are multiple cultures. It allows them to take stock of where they are, it brought so much more into awareness, it provided

a pp e n d i x f o u r   

145

more options and more choices. It also helps to develop rapport because you delve into some highly personal and emotional areas. It must be introduced in the setup and the coach must obviously contract to use it. I don’t know if the fact that she was a mentee made it more accessible. This has enriched my ability to work across cultures and provided me with a tool to step back and look at the defences. Please give any suggestions for ongoing improvement of this tool. How would you like to see it developed? The colours and pictorial representation is good and should be maintained. It could be used in many different ways, for example, it could be used as an introduction only or as a tool to guide the discussion throughout the whole session. So, it could be used at the beginning, middle or end or throughout.

References

Abbott, G. (2009). Coaching with global virtual teams, an action learning perspective. In: M. Moral & G. Abbott (Eds), The Routledge Companion to International Business Coaching (pp. 269–281). London: Routledge. Abbott, G. N., Stening, B. W., Atkins, P. W. B., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Coaching expatriate managers for success: Adding value beyond training and mentoring. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44: 295–317. Ashridge (2006). Developing the Global Leader of Tomorrow. Available at: www.unprme.org/resource-docs/developingthegloballeaderoftomorro wreport.pdf [last accessed 18/01/2016]. Association for Coaching & Passmore, J. (Ed.), (2009). Diversity in Coaching: Working with Gender, Culture, Race and Age. London: Kogan Page. Augsburger, D. W. (1986). Pastoral Counseling Across Cultures. Westminster: John Knox Press. BBC (2012a). Weetabix chief welcomes Bright Foods takeover. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-17939400 [last accessed 080216]. BBC (2012b). Census shows rise in foreign-born. Available at: http://www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20677515 (last accessed 8/2/16). BBC (2014a). EU migrants push up England population. Available at: www. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31760523 [last accessed 9/3/2015].

146

r e f e r e n c e s   

147

BBC (2014b). Foreign firms create 66,000 jobs—UK Trade and Investment. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28389231 [last accessed 25/5/15]. BBC (2015). Goodyear to pay $16m for Kenya and Angola bribery. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31610495 [last accessed 25/5/15]. Bisson, P., Kirkland, R., & Stephenson, E. (2010). The great rebalancing. McKinsey & Company. Available at: www.mckinsey.com/insights/ globalization/the_great_rebalancing [last accessed 24/5/2015]. Bond, M. H. (1983). How language variation affects inter-cultural differentiation of values by Hong Kong bilinguals. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2: 57–67. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., Carrasquel, R. R., Murakami, F., et al. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35: 548–570. British Council (2013). Culture at work: The value of intercultural skills in the workplace https://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/policy-insightresearch/research/culture-work-intercultural-skills-workplace [last accessed 29/5/15]. Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd edition). Hove: Routledge. Carter, R. (2008). Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality. London: Little, Brown and Company. Casement, A. (2006). The shadow. In: R. K. Papadopoulos (Ed.), The Handbook of Jungian Psychology, Theory, Practice and Applications (pp. 94–112). Hove: Routledge. Caulat, G. (2012). Virtual Leadership: Learning to Lead Differently. Farringdon: Libri Publishing. Cavanagh, M. (2006). Coaching from a systemic perspective: A complex adaptive conversation. In: D. R. Stober & A. M. Grant (Eds), Evidence Based Coaching Handbook (pp. 313–354). NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Centre for Economic Performance & The London School of Economics and Political Science (2015). A. Valero & I. Roland (Eds), Productivity and Business Policies. Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/ ea021.pdf [last accessed 09/1/16]. Cleveland, H. (1982). Information as resource. The Futurist, 16: 34–39. Available at: www.apbsrilanka.org/articales/18_ann_2006/12_R.%20 Jeyarajeswaren.pdf [last accessed 18/1/2016]. Clutterbuck, D. (2008). Are you a goal junkie? (Time to question our obsession with SMART goals). Training Journal, 43–46. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

148  

references

Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 124–131. Covey, S. R. (1992). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. London: Simon & Schuster. Cultural Orientations Framework (COF). COF Online Assessment Questionnaire. Available at: www.philrosinski.com/cof/ [last accessed 9/1/16]. DeHaan, E. (2008). Relational Coaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003). Who trusts? The origins of social trust in seven societies. European Societies, 5: 93–137. Available at: www.hks.harvard. edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Newton_SocTrust.pdf [last accessed 09/01/16]. Delta Intercultural Academy (Dialogin) (n.d.). Online at: www.dialogin. com [last accessed 29/05/15]. Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. Oxford: Heinemann. Ellis, A., & Harper, R. (1997). A Guide to Rational Living (3rd edition). Chatsworth, CA: Wilshire Book Company. Ethisphere Institute (2015). Delphi named one of the world’s most ethical companies by the Ethisphere Institute. Available at: www.delphi.com/ media/pressreleases/2015/03/09/delphi-named-one-of-the-worlds-most-ethical-companies-by-the-ethisphere-institute [last accessed 25/5/15]. European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) (n.d.). Accreditation. Available at: http://emccaccreditation.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2009/10/Competence-Framework-Oct-20092.pdf [last accessed 25/05/2015]. Fisher, G. (1998). Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in international relations (2nd edition). Clerkenwell: Nicholas Brealey. Freeman, J. B., Rule, N. O., Adams, R. B. Jr, & Ambady, N. (2009). Culture shapes a mesolimbic response to signals of dominance and subordination that associates with behaviour. Neurolmage, 47: 353–359. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Gannon, M. (2001). Cultural Metaphor: Readings, Research Translations, and Commentary. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilbert, K., & Rosinski, P. (2008). Accessing cultural orientations: The online Cultural Orientations Framework Assessment as a tool for coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1: 81–92. Global Workplace Analytics (n.d.) Available at: http://globalwork placeanalytics.com/resources/costs-benefits [last accessed 6/1/16]. Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C. L., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global Leadership: The Next Generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

r e f e r e n c e s   

149

Grant, A. M. (2006). An integrative goal-focused approach to executive coaching. In: D. R. Stober & A. M. Grant (Eds), Evidence Based Coaching Handbook. (pp. 153–192). New York: Wiley. Grove, D. & Panzer, B. I. (1989). Resolving Traumatic Memories: Metaphors and symbols in psychotherapy. New York: Irvington. Grove, D. & Wilson, C. (2005). Emergent Knowledge ΣK™ and Clean Coaching: New theories of David Grove. First published in The Model, magazine of the  British Board of NLP,  edition 2. Available at: www. cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/47/1/Emergent-Knowledgeand-Clean-Coaching/Page1.html [last accessed 12/1/16]. Gundling, E., Hogan, T., & Cvitkovich, K. (2011). What is Global Leadership? Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey. Hall, B. P. (1994). Values Shift: A Guide to Personal and Organisational Transformation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Hall, T. E. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Anchor. Hall, T. E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor. Hall, T. E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor. Hall, T. E. (1983). The Dance of Life. New York: Anchor. Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in Japan studies. Journal of Japanese Studies, 11: 289–321. Han, S., Mao, L., Gu, X., Zhu, Y., Ge, J., & Ma, Y. (2008). Neural consequences of religious beliefs on self-referential processing. Social Neuroscience, 3(1): 1–15. Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Cultural Organisation of Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press. Harvard Business Review (2015). Measuring the return on character. Available at: https://hbr.org/2015/04/measuring-the-return-oncharacter [last accessed 21/5/2015]. Heider, F. (1953). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Cited in StaintonRogers, W. (2003). Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7: 243–281. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Workrelated Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1996). Riding the waves of commerce: A test of Trompenaars’ “model” of national culture differences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20: 189–198. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2003). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. London: Profile.

150  

references

Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 882–896. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd edition). New York: McGraw Hill. Holden, N. J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge Management Perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education. Holland, J. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19: 1–8. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. House, R. J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37: 3–10. Hsu, F. L. K. (1971). Psychosocial Homeostasis and Jen: Conceptual tools for advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropologist, New Series, 73: 23–44. Inglehart, R., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human Values and Beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. Ann-Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Inkeles, A. (1998). One World Emerging? Convergence and Divergence in Industrial Societies. Boulder, CO: Westview. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1963). The personal system and the sociocultural system in large-scale organizations. Sociometry, 26: 217–229. International Coaching Federation (ICF) (n.d.). Core competencies. Available at: www.coachfederation.org/icfcredentials/core-competencies/ [last accessed 29/5/15]. Javidan, M., Dortman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 67–90. Jeffery, R. (2014). The neuroscience of bias: Diet Cola makes you (even) more racist. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/ weblog/archive/2014/06/22/diet-cola-makes-you-even-more-racist. aspx [last accessed 29/5/15]. Kharas, H. (2010). The emerging middle class in developing countries. OECD Development Centre, Working Paper, No. 285. OECD Publishing. Available at: www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf [last accessed 29/5/15]. Summary available at: www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/ aid/3681/An_emerging_middle_class.html Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

r e f e r e n c e s   

151

Kohli, H. S., Sharma, A., & Sood, A. (Eds) (2011). Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century. New Delhi: Sage for the Asian Development Bank. KPMG (1999). Unlocking Shareholder Value: The Keys to Success. Available at: http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/eqnotes/KPM GM&A.pdf [last accessed 10/1/2016]. KPMG (2009). A New Dawn: Good deals in Challenging Times. Available at https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/Articles Publications/Documents/a-new-dawn.pdf [last accessed 10/1/2016]. Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York: Vintage. KRW Research Institute (2009). The CEO’s Worldview and Business Results: A Research Concept Paper, White Paper 102. Minneapolis, MN: KRW. Lago, C. (2011). The Handbook of Transcultural Counselling and Psychotherapy. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Law, H. C. (2011). Intercultural coaching approach for Asian family business. In: M. Shams & D. Lane (Eds),  Coaching in the Family Owned Business: A Path to Growth (pp. 41–58). London: Karnac. Law, H. C. (2013). The Psychology of Coaching, Mentoring and Learning (2nd edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Law, H. C., Ireland, S., & Hussain, Z. (2007). The Psychology of Coaching, Mentoring and Learning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in Mind: Transformation Through Symbolic Modelling. London: Developing Company. Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about when we talk about a global mindset: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 231–258. Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York: Macmillan. Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2010). Workshifting Benefits: The Bottom Line. Telework Research Institute, Available at: http://betterorldtelecom.com/ resources/pdfs/Workshifting%20Benefits-The%20Bottom%20Line.pdf [last accessed 06/1/2016]. Lister, K. & Harnish, T. (2011). The Shifting Nature of Work in the UK: Bottom Line Benefits of Telework. Available at: http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/ wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/Telework-in-the-UK_4-311.1-Final-Rev.pdf [last accessed 30/12/15]. Livermore, D. (2015a). Culturally intelligent leaders know when It’s “cultural” and when it isn’t. Available at: http://davidlivermore. com/blog/2015/02/20/culturally-intelligent-leaders-know-whenits-cultural-and-when-it-isnt/ [last accessed 30/12/2015].

152  

references

Livermore, D. (2015b). Leading with Cultural Intelligence: The Real Secret to Success. New York: AMACOM. Lopez, S. J., Prosser, E. C., Edwards, L. M., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Neufeld, J. E., & Rasmussen, H. N. (2002). Putting positive psychology in a multicultural context. In: C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 700–714). New York: Oxford University Press. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. In: R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The Self in Social Psychology (pp. 339–367). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Matsumoto, D. (2001). Culture and emotion. In: D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 171–194). New York: Oxford University Press. McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. McKinsey & Company (2015). Why diversity matters. Available at: www. mckinsey.com/insights/organization/why_diversity_matters [last accessed 25/5/15]. Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., Maznevski, M., Stevens, M. J., & Stahl, G. K. (2013). Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development (2nd edition). London: Routledge. Mitchell, P. (2006). in Stober , D. R. & Grant, A. M. Evidence Based Coaching Handbook. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 313. Moral, M. C., & Abbott, G. (2009). The Routledge Companion to International Business Coaching. London: Routledge. Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2007). Managing Cultural Differences: Global Leadership Strategies for the 21st Century. Oxford: Elsevier. Moss Kanter, R. (2011). How great companies think differently. Harvard Business Review. Available at: www.hbr.org/2011/11/howgreat-companies-think-differently [last accessed 29/5/15]. Naranjo, C. (1993). Gestalt Therapy: The Attitude and Practice of an Atheoretical Experientialism. Carmarthen: Crown House. Nisbett, R. E. (2005). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why. London: Nicholas Brealey. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2011), Statistical Bulletin, Population Estimates by Ethnic Group 2002–2009, Downloadable at: http://www. ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population+Estimates+ by+Ethnic+Group (last accessed 8/2/16). Office for National Statistics (2013). Ownership of UK Quoted Shares, 2012. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_327674.pdf [last accessed 10/1/16]. Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Delano, J., & Jacob, M. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14: 65–79.

r e f e r e n c e s   

153

Oxford University Migration Observatory (2015). Major new analysis of regional migrant populations of England. Available at: www. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press-releases/major-new-analysisregional-migrant-populations-england [last accessed 24/5/2015]. Parker, C. B. (2015). People from different cultures express sympathy differently. Available at: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/ cultural-differences-sympathy-032525.html [last accessed 21/5/2015]. Pine II, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (2011). The Experience Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Plaister-Ten, J. (2008). Towards Greater Cultural Understanding in Coaching [Master’s dissertation]. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. Plaister-Ten, J. (2009). Towards greater cultural understanding in coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Issue, 3: 64–81. Plaister-Ten, J. (2010). Adapt and survive. Coaching at Work, 5: 47–49. Plaister-Ten, J. (2011). The European Mentoring and Coaching Council, (EMCC), Papers from the 1st EMCC Research Conference, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Developing Coaching and mentoring research and practice, Towards Greater Cultural Understanding in Coaching (Eds. Donovan, I. & Megginson, D.). Wiltshire: EMCC. pp. 126–143. ISBN: 978-0-9570880-0-9. Plaister-Ten, J. (2013). Raising culturally-derived awareness and building culturally-appropriate responsibility: The development of the CrossCultural Kaleidoscope. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special issue, 11: 53–69. Pollock, D. E., & Van Reken, R. E. (2001). Third Culture Kids: The Experience of Growing Up Among Worlds. London: Nicholas Brealey. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Managing People in a Changing World: Key Trends in Human Capital a Global Perspective—2010. Available at: www. pwc.com/us/en/hr-management/assets/managing-people-keytrends-2010.pdf [last accessed 9/1/15]. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Renaud, M. (2009). Air France KLM: Lessons from a Successful Merger. Presentation delivered in York, UK: High-Performing International Teams, 17/9/2009. Ridler & Co (2011). Trends in the Use of Executive Coaching. London: Ridler & Co and EMCCUK. Ridler & Co (2013). Trends in the Use of Executive Coaching. London: Ridler & Co and EMCCUK. Available at: www.associationforcoaching. com/media/uploads/RIDLER-REPORT-2013.pdf [last accessed 29/5/2015].

154  

references

Rock, D., & Page, L. J. (2009). Coaching with the Brain in Mind. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Rogers, C. R. (1964). Toward a modern approach to values: The valuing process in the mature person. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68: 160–167. Rogers, J. (2004). Coaching Skills: A Handbook. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Education. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching Across Cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey. Rosinski, P. (2010). Global Coaching: An Integrated Approach for Longlasting Results. London: Nicholas Brealey. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80: 1–28. Ryde (2011). Issues for white therapists. In: C. Lago (Ed.), The Handbook of Transcultural Counselling and Psychotherapy (p. 94). Berkshire: Open University Press. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Schneider, S. C., & Barsoux, J. L. (2003). Managing Across Cultures. Harlow: Pearson Education. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26: 92–116. Scott, S. (2002). Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success in Work and in Life One Conversation at a Time. London: Piatkus. Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organisation, London: Random House. Shams, M., & Lane, D. A. (2011). Coaching in the Family Owned Business: A path To Growth. London: Karnac. Shapiro, S. B. (1967). Myself as An Instrument, in: J. F. T. Bugental, (ed). Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. NY: McGraw Hill. Smith, P. B., Peterson M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural values, source of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-Nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33: 188–207. Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (n.d.). SIETAR Europa. Online at: www.sietareu.org [last accessed 29/5/2015]. Stainton-Rogers, W. (2003). Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on its Nature and Definition. New York: Ablex. Stober, D. R., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Evidence Based Coaching Handbook. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

r e f e r e n c e s   

155

Stout-Rostron, S. (2009). Business Coaching International: Transforming Individuals and Organizations. London: Karnac. Sue, D., & Sue, D. (2008). Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice (5th edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds), Organizational Identity. (pp. 56–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tharoor, I. (2015). From scrapped arms deals to pleas for democracy: Why Sweden is the only Western country standing up to Saudi Arabia. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudiambassador-to-sweden-recalled-at-last-a-western-country-stands-upto-saudi-arabia-on-human-10103652.html [last accessed 9/1/2016]. The Earth Charter (2000). Available at: http://earthcharter.org/discover/ the-earth-charter [last accessed 10/1/16]. The Grocer (2012). Best of British? Just 44 of top 150 brands now UK-owned. Available at: www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/suppliers/best-ofbritish-just-44-of-top-150-brands-now-uk-owned/226807.article [last accessed 9/3/2015]. The Guardian (2011). The ethnic population of England and Wales broken down by local authority. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/ news/datablog/2011/may/18/ethnic-population-england-wales [Last accessed 8/2/16]. The International Profiler (TIP). Worldwork Ltd. Available at: www. worldwork.biz/legacy/www/docs3/tip.html [last accessed 29/5/15]. The New York Times (2012). Whites account for under half of births in the U.S. Available at: www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-accountfor-under-half-of-births-in-us.html [last accessed 24/5/2015]. The Week (2012a). Our non-white future will breed a new politics. The Week, 871: 15. The Week (2012b). China’s spending spree. The Week, 855: 13. Thomas, R. R., & Woodruff, M. (1999). Building a House for Diversity. New York: AMACOM. Thunderbird Najafi Global Mindset Institute (2012). Available at: http:// globalmindset.thunderbird.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/gmi_ bro_01_07_13.pdf TMS Development International Ltd. (TMSDI). Team Management Profile. Available at: www.tmsworldwide.com/tmp.html [last accessed 25/5/15]. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96: 506–520.

156  

references

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present and future. In: D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Trickey, D. (2006). A question of trust: measuring and developing trust in teams. Available at: www.worldwork.biz/legacy/www/downloads/ A%20Question%20of%20Trust.pdf [last accessed 27/5/2015]. Trilling, L. (1955). The Opposing Self. London: Secker and Warburg. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey. United Nations Population Fund (2015). Migration. Available at: www. unfpa.org/migration [last accessed 9/1/2016]. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). John-Steiner, V., Souberman, E., Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (Eds.) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ware, J., & Grantham, C. (2010). Managing a Remote Workforce: Proven Practices from Successful Leaders. The Work Design Collaborative. Available at: http://thefutureofwork.net/assets/Managing_a_Remote_ Workforce_Proven_Practices_from_Successful_Leaders.pdf [last accessed 6/1/2016]. Wasserman, N. (2012). The Founder’s Dilemmas: Anticipating and Avoiding the Pitfalls That Can Sink a Startup. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for Performance: GROWing People, Performance and Purpose (3rd edition). London: Nicholas Brealey. Wiesel, E. (2012). The Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach programme: Hatred and Humanity. Available at: www.un.org/en/holocaustre membrance/Hatred_and_Humanity.pdf [last accessed 24/5/2015]. Wilson, W. (2012). Global mindedness—constructive grounded theory in the search for meaning: a novice researcher’s guide, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Issue 6: 1–14 Wong, E., & Leung, L. (2007). The Power of Ren: China’s Coaching Phenomenon. Singapore: John Wiley.

INDEX

bicultural personality, 52 Bird, A., 76, 152 Bisson, P., 6, 147 Bond, M. H., 70–71, 73, 147 Boyacigiller, N. A., 11, 151 brain usage in evaluation, 26–28 bribery, 9 BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), 6 bridging cultural gaps, 124–125 Burr, V., 33, 147 business benefits and intercultural skills, 95 goals, 98 impact of values on goals, 97 butterfly effect, 6

Abbott, G., 68, 152 Abbott, G. N., 10, 62, 99, 146 acceptance, 97 full, 86 achievement/ascription, 74 Adams, R. B. Jr., 27, 148 adaptation, 75 affective/neutral, 74 aligning to values, 122–123 Ambady, N., 27, 148 ambiguity, tolerance for, 113 applicability of techniques, 133 Ashridge, 11, 57, 146 assertive, being not, 100–101 Association for Coaching and Passmore, 68, 146 Atkins, P. W. B., 10, 99, 146 attribution error, 28 attribution theory, 28 Au, A., 70–71, 147 Augsburger, D. W., 16, 146 awareness, 97 being culturally aware, 131 coach’s self-awareness, 114–115 culturally derived, 81–82 modifying, 90 raising, 81

Carrasquel, R. R., 70–71, 147 Carter, R., 52, 147 Casement, A., 147 Caulat, G., 62, 147 Cavanagh, M., 14–15, 147 Centre for Economic Performance & The London School of Economics and Political Science, 8, 147 Chairs see putting oneself in another’s shoes change, capacity for, 112–113 character traits, 10 China Investment Corporation (CIC), 7 choice, 89–90 clean language, 93 Cleveland, H., 125, 147 climate lens, 42–44

Barsoux, J. L., 95, 154 Basanez, M., 71, 150 Beechler, S., 11, 151 belief(s) environment and, 27 limiting, 96 suspending, 84

157

158  

index

Clutterbuck, D., 91, 147 coachee’s disposition to change, 16 coaches interviewed, 137 coaching, 3, 15–16 and mentoring practice, 14 questions when working with cultural mandates, 29 COF see cultural orientations framework (COF) collective intelligence, 119, 125–127 aligning to values, 122–123 bridging cultural gaps, 124–125 constructive use of the self, 119 cross-cultural wisdom, 125 decoding, 120 directive and non-directive coaching, 120–122 higher purpose and meaning, 123–124 leakage, 120 collective self, 26 communication style, 50–51 community lens, 38–40 complex adaptive system (CAS), 3, 12, 75, 134 cross-cultural coaching relationship, 14 elements in, 15 identifying patterns, 12, 15, 54 complexity theory, 15 compliance, ethics and culture, 9 conflicting values, 53 constructivist approach, 15 context, high and low, 40 convergency theorists, 69 Cooperrider, D. L., 75, 147 Costa, P. T. Jr., 83, 147 Cousins, S. D., 25, 148 Covey, S. R., 148 CQ see cultural intelligence (CQ) CQS see Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS)

creativity and innovation, 10 creolisation, 31 cross-cultural coach, 29, 107 backgrounds, 107–108 being open, 111 capacity for change, 112–113 challenging assumptions, 110–111 cross-cultural orientation, 108–109 cross-cultural wisdom, 118 cultural self-awareness, 114–115 learning from mistakes, 115–117 qualities of, 110 skill of, 93 tolerance for ambiguity, 113 transcultural personality, 117–118 working with paradox, 113–114 world citizen, 109 cross-cultural coaching, 92–93 relationship, 14 Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model, 13–14, 134 see also complex adaptive system (CAS); cross-cultural coach; cultural self coachee’s disposition to change, 16 coaching and mentoring practice, 14 coaching questions, 29 complexity theory, 15 constructivist approach, 15 cultural self, 14 development, 76 dynamic environment, 14 guilt culture, 16 in non-familiar setting, 30 reflective feedback process, 14 Rotter’s theory of locus of control, 30 shame culture, 16 stages of, 17–20

i n d e x   

straightforward culture, unlikely to be, 32 systems approach, 14–17 usage by professionals, 141 cross-cultural orientation, 108–109 cross-cultural wisdom, 118, 125 cross-functional pattern identification, 12 cultural awareness building, 81–82, 94 choice, 89–90 clean language, 93 cross-cultural coaching, 92–93 culturally appropriate responsibility, 82 culturally derived awareness, 82 dangers of imposing Western processes and models, 91–92 designing actions, 89 effect of lack of self-awareness, 85 formation of cultural hypothesis, 82–83 full acceptance, 86 Gestalt therapy, 85–86 issues with cultural dilemma, 92 lack of trust, 88–89 metaphor, 93–94 modifying awareness, 90 to neutralise the space, 85 neutral space, 84–86 non-intrusive space, 85 openness, 83 peach and the coconut tool, 92 putting oneself in another’s shoes, 86–87 reflecting back, 86 suspending belief, 84 taking responsibility, 88–89 understanding opposing positions, 87 unlearning, 82

159

cultural chameleon, 52–53 cultural dilemma issues, 92 cultural dimensions, 71–74 cultural gaps, bridging, 124–125 cultural hypothesis, 133 formation of, 82–83 cultural iceberg, 95–96 cultural intelligence (CQ), 83, 115 to build global leader, 83 sense of self-awareness, 84 Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS), 83 cultural issues as business success, 7 cultural issues in coaching, 50 see also teamwork advocacy and inquiry communication style, 51 bicultural personality, 52 challenging language skills, 51 conflicting values, 53 cultural chameleon, 52–53 importance of values, 54 UK communication style, 51 unlearning cultural constructs, 55–56 cultural norms, xxi–xxii, 39–40, 51, 64, 82, 96 cultural orientations framework (COF), 68, 149 cultural relativism, 9 cultural self, 14, 21–23 see also Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model; self challenged, 24 coaching questions, 25 cultural differences in emotional values, 24–25 dialogical theory, 22 exploring cultural self, 23–24 humility, 23 as key element of personality, 32 personality, 23 cultural self-awareness, 114–115

160  

index

cultural self-identity, 23 cultural understanding in coaching relationship, 95 acceptance, 97 awareness, 97 being not assertive, 100–101 business goals, 98 creating distance, 100 cultural iceberg, 95–96 deference, 101 difficulty in, 98–101 equal treatment construed as discrimination, 101 factors required in/for global executive coaching, 100 impact of values on business goals, 97–98 importance of, 10 intercultural skills and business benefits, 95 internalisation of culture, 99 significance of culture, 99 societal impact, 99 values-led leadership styles, 98 variations in, 102–105 working with values, 96 cultural values on self, 74–75 culturally appropriate responsibility in coaching relationship, 131 culture, impact of, 3, 43, 50, 75 butterfly effect, 6 in coaching, 68 cultural issues as business success, 7 impact on global leadership, 8–10 impact of interconnectedness, 6 importance of, 99 internalisation of, 99 layers of, 4 as learned beliefs and values, 82 living outside country of origin, 5

minority population, 5 multicultural world, 4–6 organisational, 8 culture(s), 8, 16 subjective, 99 Cvitkovich, K., 11, 149 decoding, 120 deference, 101 DeHaan, E., 122, 148 Delano, J., 76, 152 Delhey, J., 60, 148 Delta Intercultural Academy (Dialogin), 126, 148 Detterman, D. K., 83, 154 Dialogical Self Theory (DST), 22 differences of opinions on culture effect, 67 diffuse/specific, 74 dimensions, 71–74 directive and non-directive coaching, 120–122 discrimination, equal treatment construed as, 101 distance, creating, 100 diversity lens, 44–45 Dorfman, P. W., 68–69, 98, 132, 150 Drucker, P., 72, 148 economic lens, 41–42 education lens, 35–36 Edwards, L. M., 16, 34, 152 elephant and giraffe fable, 87 Ellis, A., 96, 148 emergence of multicultural team, 61 emotion, recognition of, 103 equal treatment construed as discrimination, 101 Ethisphere Institute, 9, 148 European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC), 89, 148 external lenses, 34

i n d e x   

Facileader, 62 Fisher, G., 72, 97–98, 148 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 9 foreign investors, 7–8 Freeman, J. B., 27, 148 Friedman, T. L., 148 full acceptance, 86 Gannon, M., 76, 94, 148 GDP (gross domestic product), 6 Ge, J., 26, 149 Gestalt therapy, 85–86 Gilbert, K., 74, 99, 148 Gilmore, J. H., 153 global business, 7 cultural issues as success factor, 7 culturally diverse team, 10 foreign investors, 7–8 impact of context, 10 organisational culture, 8 UK productivity, 8 global executive coaching, 16 see also Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope model factors required in, 100 global leader, to build effectiveness, 83 global leadership, 8–10, 68–69 Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE), 68 global mindset, 11–12 Global Mindset Institute, Thunderbird (GMI), 83, 115 Global Workplace Analytics, 148 globalisation, xvi, xxiii, 3, 12, 18–19, 31, 66, 100, 102, 132 Goldsmith, M., 148 Grant, A. M., 10, 54, 91, 99, 146, 149, 154 Greenberg, C. L., 148

161

groups, 30–31 Grove, D., 93, 149 GROW coaching process, (Goal, Reality, Options and Will), 89 guilt culture, 16 Gundling, E., 11, 149 Gupta, V., 68–69, 98, 132, 150 Gu, X., 26, 149 habitus, 71 Hall, B. P., 18, 149 Hall, T. E., 50, 69, 74, 99, 104, 113, 149 Hamaguchi, E., 149 Hampden-Turner, C., 71, 132, 156 Han, S., 26, 149 Hanges, P. J., 68–69, 98, 132, 150 Hannerz, U., 31, 149 Harnish, T., 63, 151 Harper, R., 96, 148 Harris, P. R., 14, 75, 98, 152 Harvard Business Review, 9, 149 Heider, F., 28, 149 Hermans, H. J. M., 22, 132, 149 history lens, 40–41 Hofstede, G., 12, 17, 28, 30, 55, 68, 71–72, 74–76, 97–99, 132, 149–150 Hofstede, G. J., 17, 28, 89, 97–98, 121, 150 Hogan, T., 11, 149 Holden, N. J., 69, 150 Holland, J., 12, 75, 150 House, R. J., 68–69, 98, 132, 150 Hsu, F. L. K., 26, 150 Hu-Chan, M., 148 ICF see International Coaching Federation (ICF) Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT), 69 individuals in groups see also cultural self

162  

index

collective programming of mind, 30 creolisation, 31 groups, 30–31 having multiple perspectives, 31 individualism/collectivism, 72 individualism/ communitarianism, 74 sense of belonging, 31 third culture kids, 32 indulgence vs. self-restraint, 73 Inglehart, R., 70–71, 150 Inkeles, A., 69, 71–72, 132, 150 inner/outer directedness, 74 innovation, 75 interconnectedness impact, 6 intercultural communication, 98 intercultural skills and business benefits, 95 intercultural work, challenges in, 62–63 internalisation of culture, 99 International Coaching Federation (ICF), 89, 150 International Profiler, The (TIP), 83, 155 International Team Trust Indicator tool, 60 Interpretative Phenomeno­logical Analysis (IPA), 76 interview guide, 139–140 interviewed coaches, 137 Jacob, M., 76, 152 Javidan, M., 68–69, 98, 132, 150 Jeffery, R., 31, 150 Kaleidoscope model, external factors, 33 climate lens, 42–44 community lens, 38–40 diversity lens, 44–45

economic lens, 41–42 education lens, 35–36 external lenses, 34 history lens, 40–41 impact of organisation culture, 45–46 legal lens, 37 lens by lens exploration, 34 political lens, 36–37 rationale for, 33 spiritual lens, 38 Kaleidoscope model, reflective feedback sample, 143–145 Kaleidoscope model, three stages, 17 stage one, 17 stage two, 18 stage three, 19 Kaleidoscope model, usage, 48 antenna, xxii, 47–49, 52 applicability of, 47 in coaching practice, 48–49 effect of, 54 in emergence of meaning and purpose, 61 as means of intuitive response, 49–50, 52 in multicultural team, 61 as problem-solving tool, 65 for taking responsibility, 49 as team-building tool, 63–65 as team tool, 58 as transformational tool, 65–66 Kanter, Moss, 126 Kharas, H., 150 Kirkland, R., 6, 147 Kitayama, S., 25, 28, 88, 152 Kluckhohn, C., 3, 151 Kluckhohn, F., 68, 71, 132, 150 Kohli, H. S., 6, 151 KPMG, 7, 151 Kroeber, A. L., 3, 151 KRW Research Institute, 151

i n d e x   

Lago, C., 151 Lane, D. A., 68, 154 language skills, beyond, 94 language skills, challenging, 51 Law, H. C., 68, 86, 151 Lawley, J., 151 leadership, global, 8–10 see also complex adaptive system (CAS) bribery, 9 character traits, 10 creativity and innovation, 10 cultural relativism, 9 global mindset, 11–12 need for cultural understanding, 10 penalty on Goodyear, 9 return on character, 9 leadership styles, values-led, 98 leakage, 120 learning from mistakes, 115–117 legal lens, 37 Lencioni, P., 59, 151 lens by lens exploration, 34 Leung, K., 70–71, 147 Leung, L., 26, 156 Levinson, D. J., 71–72, 132, 150 Levy, O., 11, 151 Lewin, R., 15, 75, 151 Lister, K., 63, 151 literature, body of, 67 Livermore, D., 50, 83, 151–152 living outside country of origin, 5 Long Term Orientation (LTO), 16 loose culture, 26 Lopez, S. J., 16, 34, 152 Ma, Y., 26, 149 Magyar-Moe, J. L., 16, 34, 152 management by objectives (MBOs), 72 Mao, L., 26, 149

163

Markus, H. R., 25, 28, 88, 152 masculine/feminine dimension, 72 Matsumoto, D., 103, 152 McClelland, D. C., 68, 152 McCrae, R. R., 83, 147 McKinsey & Company, 8, 152 merger/acquisition, 7 metaphor, use of, 93–94 mind, collective programming of, 30 Minkov, M., 17, 28, 97–98, 150 minority population, 5 Mitchell, P., 54, 152 modifying awareness, 90 Moral, M. C., 68, 152 Moran, R. T., 14, 75, 98, 152 Moran, S. V., 14, 75, 98, 152 Moreno, A., 71, 150 Moss Kanter, R., 132, 152 multicultural world, 4–6 Murakami, F., 70–71, 147 Naranjo, C., 85, 152 Neufeld, J. E., 16, 34, 152 neutral space, 84–86 Newton, K., 60, 148 Nisbett, R. E., 27, 68, 112, 152 norms, cultural, 96 Office of National Statistics (ONS), 5, 7, 152 openness, 83, 111 opposing positions, understanding, 87 organisational culture, 8, 16 impact, 45–46 Osland, J. S., 76, 152 Oxford University Migration Observatory, 5, 153 Panzer, B. I., 93, 149 paradox, working with, 113–114 Parker, C. B., 24, 153

164  

index

PDI see power distance indicator (PDI) peach and coconut tool, 92 penalty on Goodyear see leadership, global personality bicultural, 52 and sociocultural environment, 72 perspectives, multiple, 31 PESTLE (political, economic, social, technological, legislative, and environmental), 57, 65 Pine II, B. J., 153 Plaister-Ten, J., 13, 49, 67, 79, 82, 102, 107, 153 political lens, 36–37 Pollock, D. E., 32, 153 power distance indicator (PDI), 72–73 PricewaterhouseCoopers, 10–11, 153 private self, 26 problem-solving tool, 65 productivity, UK, 8 Prosser, E. C., 16, 34, 152 psychological constructs, 28 homeostasis, 26 impact of culture, 129–131 Putnam, R. D., 68, 153 putting oneself in another’s shoes, 86–87 Rasmussen, H. N., 16, 34, 152 reasoning, thought patterns and, 27 reflecting back, 14, 86 sample, 143–145 relevance of systems, 75–76 Renaud, M., 7, 153 responsibility, 28 culturally appropriate, 82 taking, 88–89 return on character, 9 Ridler & Co., 100, 153

Robertson, A., 148 Rogers, C. R., 70, 86, 154 Rogers, J., 154 Rokeach, M., 70–71, 132, 154 Rosinski, P., 11, 68, 74, 99, 124, 148, 154 Rotter, J. B., 30, 154 Rotter’s theory of locus of control, 30 Rule, N. O., 27, 148 Ryde, 31, 154 Sagiv, L., 70–71, 132, 154 safe, culturally, 117 savings in virtual team, 63 Schein, E. H., 10, 71, 154 Schneider, S. C., 95, 154 Schwartz, S. H., 70–71, 132, 154 Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), 70 Scott, S., 154 Securities’ and Exchange Commission (SEC), 9 self, 25 see also cultural self; individuals in groups attribution error, 28 attribution theory, 28 -awareness, effect of lack of, 85 brain usage in evaluating, 26–28 collective, 26 -concepts, 25 -disclosure as defence mechanism, 29 embracing concept of allegiance to others, 27 environment and our beliefs, 27 instrument, as an, 119 mandates upon, 88 meaning for psychological constructs, 28 notion of responsibility, 28 private self, 26 psychosocial homeostasis, 26 shadow, 36, 115

i n d e x   

thought patterns and reasoning, 27 Senge, P., 45, 154 sense of belonging, 31 sense of self-awareness, 84 sequential/synchronic, 74 shame culture, 16 Shams, M., 68, 154 Shapiro, S. B., 119, 154 Sietar (Society of Intercultural Educators, Trainers and Researchers), 126 social constructivist approach, xvi, xxi–xxii Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research, 154 sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), 7 space neutral, 84–86 non-intrusive, 85 spiritual lens, 38 Stainton-Rogers, W., 28, 154 Stening, B. W., 10, 99, 146 Stephenson, E., 6, 147 stereotyping, 31 sophisticated, 110 Sternberg, R. J., 83, 154 Stober, D. R., 54, 154 Stout-Rostron, S., 68, 155 straightforward culture, not, 32 Strodtbeck, F., 68, 71, 132, 150 studies on Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope development, 76 cultural dimensions, 71–74 culture in coaching, 68 differences of opinions on culture effect, 67 global leadership, 68–69 impact of cultural values on the self, 74–75 relevance of systems, 75–76

165

values and value systems theory, 69–71 Sue, D., 101, 155 Sully de Luque, M., 69, 150 suspending belief, 84 SVS see Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) SWFs see sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) systems approach, 14–17, 133 Tajfel, H., 30, 155 Taylor, S., 11, 151 team -building tool, 63–65 culturally diverse, 10 tool, 58 virtual, 62–63 Team Management Profile, 61–62 teamwork, 57 see also cultural issues in coaching challenges in intercultural work, 62–63 challenges of working in, 58–59 Facileader, 62 failure in, 58 problem-solving tool, 65 savings in virtual, 63 team-building tool, 63–65 team tool, 63–65 transformational tool, 65–66 trust, 59–62 Tharoor, I., 9, 155 third culture kids, 32 Thomas, R. R., 87, 155 Thunderbird Najafi Global Mindset Institute Najafi, 155 Thunderbird Global Mindset Inventory (GMI) see Global Mindset Institute, Thunderbird (GMI) tight culture, 26

166  

index

TIP see International Profiler, The (TIP) TMS Development International (TMSDI), 61–62, 155 Tompkins, P., 151 Tong, K.-K., 70–71, 147 transcultural personality, 117–118 transformational tool, 65–66 Triandis, H. C., 25, 30, 72, 99, 155–156 Trickey, D., 60, 156 Trilling, L., 156 Trompenaars, F., 71, 132, 156 trust, 59–62 lack of, 88–89 meanings of, 60 societal level, 88 Turner, J. C., 30, 155 Uncertainty Avoidance Indicator (UAI), 73 unconscious bias, 31 understanding, 95 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 23 United Nations Population Fund, 156 Universal Integrated Framework (UIF), 68 universalism/particularism, 74 unlearning, 55, 82 cultural constructs, 55–56 values alignment, 122 ‘brokerage unit’, 18 Chinese Value Survey, 73

conflicting, 53 different, leads to different definitions of success, 97 effect on business goals, 97–98 ‘holding lightly’, 85 identification of, and beliefs, 98 importance of, 54 -led leadership styles, 98 restrictive, 9 and value systems theory, 69–71 working with, 96 World Values Survey, 70 Van Reken, R. E., 32, 153 virtual team, 62–63 VUCA world (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world), 127 Vygotsky, L. S., 156 Wasserman, N., 58, 156 Western processes and models, dangers of imposing, 91–92 Whitmore, J., 48, 156 Whitney, D., 75, 147 Wiesel, E., 156 Wilson, C., 93, 149 Wilson, W., 11, 156 wisdom, 125 Wong, E., 26, 156 Woodruff, M., 87, 155 work practices, 10 world citizen, 109 World Values Survey, 70 Zhu, Y., 26, 149