Discover Your Coaching Niche

In the first two parts of this article, I’ve begun to argue that largely unconscious preferences of individuals from different cultures should influence how we coach. 

But what are the implications of this for our coaching, and what specific examples could we see?

Implications for Our Coaching

For example, if we find ourselves in a culture of respect for rules, formal and informal, with a low tolerance of uncertainty – France, for example – it might be harder to persuade our coachee to change if the changes might not be in full alignment with the accepted rules.

If there is high collectivism – as in India and Spain – where individuals are very influenced by their extended family and work ties, they may find their work on themselves impeded by the need to conform to group norms.  Or at least they may seek to consult with the group on changes that affect them, and so may affect the group.  A consultative approach here might result in longer times to take decisions, and the appearance of indecision on the part of our coachee.

In a culture where there is a high power-distance indicator – such as France - it might mean that the more successful mode of getting someone to do something is to be in a position of power over them, and might involve telling them to do something.

If the culture was very feminine - like Spain, and much of Latin America – with a greater value on relationships, caring and quality of life, the drivers for change, as well as the likely content and scope of the coaching, may well vary considerably.

Specific Example

Imagine you are coaching a Spaniard with the expected high femininity, high collectivism and high power-distance characteristic of that culture. 

One might expect that as a coach you might gain more credibility and authority if you are seen as high-ranking and powerful, with power derived from hierarchy.  It may benefit you, therefore, to get your initial introduction via an officer at the highest level of the company possible.

It might also benefit if you met your coaches needs for collectivism.  That might mean being introduced informally to his colleagues, spouse, boss and extended family.  This might seem long-winded to us, but may actually gain your coachee more results in a shorter time.

To address the feminine aspects of the culture, consider back-peddling the emphasis on hard goals, especially financial ones, and place more value on your coachees’ need to form meaningful relationships, and be alert to their aspirations in relation to their quality of life – inside and outside work.

Summary
Although the coaching process may be seen as universal, the approaches you take while coaching in other cultures will determine your success or failure.  The historical coaching approaches in the US, UK, Canada and Australia can be seen as products of our shared culture. 

Hofstede’s work on characterising four major dimensions of cultural can make a critical difference to our understanding of the often unconscious cultural norms.

When you coach in a different culture, the awareness of these differences in preferences and your adapting to them can make the difference between coaching success and failure. 

Alun Richards helps coaches find and reach their coaching niche.  Discover yours with Alun’s free mini-course, “Discover Your Coaching Niche”, available from
http://www.brandingyou.org/ecoursesales.html

© Copyright Alun Richards 2007. All Rights Reserved.  You may freely distribute this article providing you do so in its entirety; ensuring the copyright and contact details above are included.

 

In the first part of this article we have asked whether coaching is universally applicable, or whether it should be adapted to different cultures.

We distinguished the coaching process from the coaching approach and the coaching relationship.  We then examined the underlying assumptions of the coaching approach and coaching relationship.

In this part of the article we will see what cultural research tells us about the coaching assumptions we have uncovered.

What does the research tell us?

Geert Hofstede is an influential Dutch researcher and writer on the differences that exist between national cultures.  Hofstede demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of individuals and that are persistent across time.

His initial research focused on four dimensions, and these are:

Power-distance (Low vs. High)
The degree to which subordinates expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.

Individualism vs. Collectivism
The extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of a group or organisation.

Masculinity vs. Femininity
Masculine cultures value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life.

Uncertainty avoidance
Reflects the extent to which a society attempts to cope with anxiety by minimising uncertainty.  Cultures that scored high in uncertainty avoidance prefer rules e.g. about religion and food and structured circumstances, and employees tend to remain longer with their present employer

OK, so we can demonstrate that there are differences between cultures – so how might this affect our coaching?

US/UK Cultural Characteristics
We’ve already said that coaching is a product of the US that has successfully transferred to the UK (and Canada and Australia).  So what do we know about the culture of the US and the UK?

According to Hofstede the cultural characteristics of the US & UK are:

• Low power-distance: individuals predominantly relate to others as equals.
• High Individual: individuals are very self-reliant, little influenced by extended family & social groupings.
• High Masculine: they value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions.
• High tolerance of uncertainty: individuals reject rules and their imposition.

I’m going to argue that these largely unconscious preferences do in fact influence how we coach, and need to be considered when we coach individuals from other cultures.

For the implications for how we should consider adapting our coaching, please see the next part of this article.

This article examines whether with coaching we should use a different approach with clients from different cultures, or are in fact coaching concepts globally applicable to all?

The question that lies behind this article is – is coaching a universal process, are its methods and structures universal, or should the coaching approach be adapted to fit with different cultures, to ensure its success?

According to a Coaching Federation survey of 2006, 76.6% of coaches operated in the US, UK, Canada or Australia.

From this statistic, it’s pretty clear where the majority of coaches are.  So let’s admit it, with coaching, we’re talking about a predominantly US-originated discipline which has successfully made the transition to the UK and Europe. 

But are the underlying assumptions and principles universal, or are some of them best adapted when using coaching with other cultures?

Defining Our Terms 

We may not often ask ourselves this question, but what is this thing called coaching?  To help us, let’s distinguish the coaching process from the coaching approach.

The Coaching Process
It’s hard to argue that at least the core coaching process is not universal. 

Who can argue that defining your current state or situation, your desired state and the possible paths that will get you there is not accepted globally.  This is simply an outline of any generic change process.

Coaching Approach
But aside from this, the coaching approach also involves drawing out solutions from the coachee, and holding them accountable for actions that they said they’d carry out.  The coaching process is a facilitative one, where the most is made of the resources held by the coachee.

We often contrast coaching with consultancy, where there is an implied imbalance of knowledge, skills and experience between the consultant and the client.

We assume that in coaching, there is a meeting of equals, with both sides bringing their unique experience and perspectives to the relationship.  And if we think further about how the traditional coaching relationship works, we can see there are a number of unspoken assumptions.

Coaching Assumptions

The coaching approach and the coaching relationship, for example, assumes:

• The coachee will take responsibility for their actions, to commit to a plan agreed between coach and coachee.
• The coachee is able to determine whether they have the skills to carry out a series of actions.
• The coachee will keep his or her word.
• That coach and coachee are normally held as equals in the partnership.
• The coachee is a self-reliant self-starter, working under their own influence.
• People who can take decisions about their own future, without checking endlessly with other people, like family, friends and colleagues.
• That the coachee is goal or outcome oriented, that change and achievement is important to them.

The question is, are these assumptions universal, or do they vary to any significant degree across cultures?

We will explore this further in the next part of this article.