A coach is a coach is a coach, right?
Western society has developed many valuable techniques and concepts, including executive coaching. A coach can offer alternative perspectives, help a coachee explore creative solutions to challenging problems, and provide systematic support for a behavioral change.
One of our blind spots, however, has been to assume that what is effective in our cultures will have the same level of success in others. This, however, could not be further from the truth! Cultural differences affect the way a person learns from, and judges, a coaching engagement, and they consequently determine how successful (or not) the coach can be.
Susan, for example, is a coach from a culture where people are self-reliant and task-oriented. Phone and email check-ins help her independent-minded executives stay on course toward their goals. After the initial meetings, her clients have appreciated regular, but brief, 15-minute follow-ups to make sure they were remaining on track and meeting their milestones.
Her new assignment with Mr. Nakamura, a Japanese executive, however, ran into trouble after the initial face-to-face meetings. Phone and email check-ins were unproductive. She could sense that he was baffled by her expectations about the process and outcomes, but didn’t know how to make the coaching experience more productive for him.
What she didn’t understand was that Japan is a culture where people are encouraged to have interdependent relationships, and who learn best from face-to-face mentorship-style coaching. In addition, his is a reflective, self-examining culture, where extended, introspective sessions that produce long-term personal changes bring more satisfaction and success.
On the other hand, Birgit, a Danish Vice President, was interacting with subordinates at their factory in India. But Gerd, her coach, found himself unable to help her with her challenge in getting straight answers from these subordinates, especially if the replies held any unpleasant news. Neither one of them had experience in, or a cross-cultural training on, India, and neither understood the difference between the two cultures’ beliefs about equality, hierarchy, and communication.
While Danes tend to be very direct and find vagueness distasteful, in India, indirect communication is considered polite. Indians loathe a straightforward refusal as it is seen as aggressive or antagonistic, but a polite Indian euphemism for “no,” such as, “maybe” or “I will try” is exactly what Danes would consider evasive.
Also, while Danes value equality, Indian society is highly stratified. People in positions of authority are expected to be shown deference and Indians will avoid countering a superior’s comment or request at all costs.
If Gerd had had direct knowledge of India such as this, he would have been able to help Birgit come up with creative solutions.
To make the coaching engagement cost and time effective, knowledge of the coachee’s cultural-specific norms, values, assumptions, and learning style must inform the coach’s approach. Additionally, the coach needs an understanding of all the cultural influences affecting the coachee.
In this multicultural world, it’s essential that we now build cultural competence into our search for the right coach. And as coaches, we need to tap the full scope of what we can bring to the coaching engagement – even if this goes against “traditional knowledge.”
by Diana Rowland, author Japanese Busines: Rules of Engagement
