 ‘If coaching is truly a learning partnership, nowhere is the partnership more important than when coaching across differences.’ (Karen Curnow) I’m indebted to Stephen German for a stimulating conversation about how to frame first coaching conversations when working cross-culturally. This style of contracting considers how cultures might interact and helps both parties reach clarity and agreement from the outset. As a starting point: ‘To make sure this partnership works well, I’d like to spend a few minutes talking through how we will work together. Since we come from different cultural backgrounds, I don't want to assume my usual way of coaching is the most helpful for you. Does that sound okay?’ 1. Non-directive ‘In my training, I’m taught to ask questions rather than give answers so that you can find solutions that fit your own challenges. However, in some cultures, a coach is seen more like a teacher who gives direct advice. How do you see my role? Do you want me primarily to offer you questions, or are there times you’ll expect me to share my own insights and ideas too?’ 2. Hierarchy (and ‘face’) ‘I want to create a space where you feel safe to be completely honest. If I ask a question that doesn’t land well, or if you disagree with an observation I make, how will I know? Is it easy for you to tell me directly, or should we find a specific way to check in on how the session is going?’ 3. Feedback ‘People handle feedback differently. Some prefer it very direct and to the point, while others find that rude and prefer a more gentle, indirect approach. Where do you sit on that scale? For example, if I notice an assumption or inconsistency in what you're saying, how would you like me to point it out?’ 4. Group vs individual ‘When we set goals, I usually focus on what you want. But I know that for many, the needs of their family or team are just as important. When we talk about big decisions, how far should we consider the hopes and concerns of, and impacts on, the people around you?’ 5. Time and timing 'In my own culture, starting and ending sessions exactly on time is considered very important. In some cultures, however, I'm aware that timekeeping is more flexible and fluid. How would you like us to handle starting and finishing times in a way that works best for you?' 6. Cultural learning ‘Lastly, from time to time, I may inadvertently say something that doesn't translate well or misses a cultural nuance. Would you be willing to let me know if it happens? I’d see that as a huge help in me becoming a better coach for you. Thank you.’ Do you want help with navigating cross-cultural relationships? Get in touch!
9 Comments
 ‘What feels polite in one language can sound evasive in another – misunderstanding is often our first shared culture.’ (Yoon Jeong Kim) I had a funny and embarrassing experience in a German supermarket this weekend. I had gone to buy some milk and fruit and, when I arrived at the checkout, the young assistant picked up the loose bananas, looked at me quizzically and said, ‘Wiegen?’ (pronounced in the same way as the English word ‘vegan’). I was puzzled. ‘Is she asking me if I’m vegan?’, ‘Is she asking if the bananas are vegan?’, ‘Aren’t all bananas vegan?’ After an awkward moment – and with a visibly restless queue forming behind me – she pointed to a weigh scale. ‘Aaah.’ Now I understood. It felt to me like a classic illustration of what can happen in communication more broadly. It’s a particular risk when speaking in a different language, or when trying to understand what another has said in a different language. We can wonder, ‘Have they understood me correctly?’, ‘Have I understood them correctly?’ It’s even more complex when communicating cross-culturally where the same words, expressions or gestures may carry and convey very different underlying meanings. Misunderstandings occur when we think we've understood, and we haven’t. Peter Cotterell explained this phenomenon well when, as Principal and lecturer at a theological school where I studied, he introduced the idea of a presuppositional pool. This is a concept used in linguistics to describe a set of shared, background assumptions that speakers, authors or presenters from a specific culture and context take for granted in communication. It’s a bit like a subconscious underlying framework that enables their communications to make sense to others. Problems arise when we find ourselves swimming in different pools without realising it. Do want to enhance your communication skills? Get in touch!  ‘Globalisation has obliterated distance, not just physically but also, most dangerously, mentally. It creates the illusion of intimacy when, in fact, the mental distances have changed little. It has concertinaed the world without engendering the necessary respect, recognition and tolerance that must accompany it.’ (Martin Jacques) At a Chinese New Year celebration meal last week, I looked around the dinner table at my family: my brother who lived in Brunei, his Malaysian wife, my sister who lived in Germany, her husband who travels the world with work, my niece who lived in Spain, my nephew who also lived in Spain and my Mum who has visited more countries than she can remember. My daughters are internationally-minded too: one taught herself Japanese and the other recently visited Austria. It struck me how much the world has changed in my own lifetime. The ability to communicate and build relationships with people all over the world has never been easier, thanks to advances in technology. International travel has never been easier too, at least for those who have the financial resources and visa permits to do it. Given these opportunities to rub shoulders with our global neighbours, we might expect a ‘one world’ outlook increasingly to predominate. Yet, take a cursory glance across current news headlines and we see an increasingly polarised world, divided along national, political and ideological lines. We see a profound fracturing in the breakdown of the rules-based international order with nationalism on the rise, and within nations where different -isms or -phobias tear at each other in heated culture wars. Perhaps global idealists forgot a deep human desire for distinctive identity, belonging, security – and power?  ‘Every border I crossed blurred another line inside me, between who I was and who I was becoming.’ (Yoon Jeong Kim) When I trained to be an English teacher for speakers of other languages, one of the things we discussed was to look out for was false friends, also called false cognates. These are words from different languages that appear similar yet have very different meanings. An example is the word ‘sensible’ which means something like ‘reasonable’ in English, but ‘sensitive’ in Spanish. A risk for language learners is that they assume that familiar, similar-sounding words, phrases or even gestures used by others carry the same meanings as their own, and that can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings. Language and culture are closely-linked, and similar risks can occur when we meet or work with people from different cultural backgrounds. We may assume that others’ similar behaviours carry the same meaning as ours, or assume that different behaviours of others mean the same as they would in our own culture. An example is nodding or saying ‘Yes’ which in many Western cultures would signal ‘I agree’ or ‘I consent’, whereas in many Eastern cultures it could mean ‘I hear you’ or ‘I understand what you are saying’. In some Eastern and African cultures it could simply be a sign of respect. Given the potential for confusion, consternation, embarrassment or frustration, I try to approach cross-cultural conversations and relationships in a spirit of curiosity. If a person or group from another culture says or does something (especially if this is a recurring pattern) that confuses, surprises or jars me, I try to pause, breathe, suspend my own judgement (based on my own cultural values) and inquire tentatively what it could mean for them. I encourage them to do the same with me. This isn’t always easy and often calls for prayer, humility and patience, yet the benefits can be immeasurable.  ‘I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.’ ‘I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I said.’ (Alan Greenspan) You may have had that experience of communicating something you thought was perfectly clear, only to discover that the other person got the completely wrong end of the proverbial stick. How is that possible? Was it something in what you said or, perhaps, how you said it that influenced how the message was received, distorted or misunderstood? Whatever the cause, when it does happen, you can both feel bemused, confused or frustrated – and the consequences can be difficult, damaging or dangerous. I want to suggest this occurs mainly as a result of mismatched beliefs, values, assumptions and emotions in four critical areas: language, culture, context and relationship. There are, of course, situations in which a person may wilfully misinterpret what you said or simply choose to ignore you. However, I’m thinking more here about when it happens inadvertently and out of awareness. It’s something about what influences (a) what we infer and (b) how we interpret, when we communicate – so that we can improve it. The language question means the same words can mean different things to different people, even in the same language group. The culture question means the assumptions I make appear obvious or self-evident in the groups or teams I belong to. The context question means I interpret what you say based on my own perspective and understanding of the situation. The relationship question means I filter what you say based on what I perceive and feel about the nature, dynamics and quality of our relationship. So – this where a spirit of inquiry can help: Check what the other has heard and understood. Notice the language they use. Be curious about their cultural and contextual perspectives. Sense and explore how they are feeling. Build trust.  ‘I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.’ (Alan Greenspan) What could possibly go wrong? Many years ago now, I arranged to meet up with a new Ugandan colleague. We were both living in the UK, on opposite sides of London, and we had agreed to meet at 10.00am at a building close to where he lived. Having travelled across the city through busy traffic, I arrived punctually at 9.55am. By 10.30am, however, he still hadn’t turned up. I didn’t have any way to contact him and I remember feeling increasingly frustrated and disrespected. At 10.35am, he strolled up casually as if nothing was wrong. Trying not to display my irritation, I said, ‘I had thought we would meet at 10.00am.’ ‘Yes’, he agreed, with a wide, relaxed smile on his face. That puzzled me so I looked down at my watch pointedly, without saying a word. ‘Oh’, he responded – a light bulb moment. ‘10.00am in African time means sometime this morning. I didn’t imagine you’d get here at 10.00am exactly.’ This was one of my first introductions to cross-cultural values, priorities and communication. We had agreed a time without realising we had each meant a different thing by it. Yet crossed-wires can happen in all kinds of relationships. I often see it arise in tensions between line-managers and their reports; team members and their team colleagues; teams working in different functions etc. I created the sample grid (above) to help untangle the wires or to help avoid them becoming crossed in the first place. It focuses on clarity and agreement in relation to, in this case, focus and boundaries. The goal is to use the tool to help surface implicit underlying assumptions and expectations and avoid confusion or stress. It can be adapted for delegation to clarify, for instance, what is negotiable and non-negotiable when it comes to decision-making, e.g. I’ll decide; We’ll discuss and I’ll decide; We’ll discuss and we’ll decide; We’ll discuss and you’ll decide; You’ll decide and ask me if you need help. Or, when delegating a task: I don’t mind what you end up with as long as it will serve X purpose; What you end up with must meet X criteria – you decide what best does this; You must end up with X – how you do it is up to you; You must go about it X way – you sort out the details.  ‘If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.’ (Yogi Berra) I was reminded this week of theories of change and strategy maps. They are, in essence, visual representations of what we do and why. If you were to imagine writing or depicting a desired outcome (vision, or goal) at the top of a sheet of paper then under that, say, 2-3 key objectives (critical conditions, or success factors needed to fulfil that outcome) then, under each objective, say, 3-5 key activities that would achieve them, there you have it – in simplest form. If you read upwards, it will answer the question, ‘We do this so that…’ and, downwards, ‘We achieve this by…’. It enables a conversation around, e.g. ‘What assumptions are we making?’ or ‘Have we properly understood the critical conditions for success?’ It also enables prioritising of activities by asking, e.g. ‘Which of these activities are we already doing well?’ or ‘Which do we need to stop, start or do differently?’ Make it creative and it’s a great communication tool.  ‘Behind every problem, there is a question trying to ask itself. Behind every question, there is an answer trying to reveal itself.’ (Michael Beckwith) Second-guessing. It creates all sorts of risks. ‘What time does Paul’s meeting finish?’ Is that a simple request for information, or is there a question behind the question? ‘I’d like to meet with Paul this afternoon. What time will he be free?’ That’s better. ‘I need you to present an urgent strategy update to the Board.’ Again, is that a simple instruction, or is there an issue that lays behind it? ‘I’d like to demonstrate to the Board next week that our investments are achieving the desired results.’ Better. A problem with a question that fails to reveal the question, the issue, that lays behind the question is that it leaves the other party to fill in the gaps. In doing so, they are likely to draw on their own assumptions – which could be very different to your own – or sometimes their anxieties. ‘Is he complaining that Paul’s meeting is over-running?’ ‘Is she inferring there’s a problem with my work on strategy delivery that I hadn’t been aware of?’ Simply stating our intention can make all the difference.  ‘Sometimes a language does exactly what we think it should; sometimes it goes places we don't like and thrives there in spite of all our worrying.’ (Kory Stamper) I taught English recently at a Montessori school in Germany. I was struck by the amazing level of conversational English of some of the students, and asked how it was possible that they could understand and speak so confidently and fluently at such a young age. Almost all replied that they have learned spoken English via online computer games, where they interact informally and socially with other young people from all over the world. English, for them, isn’t just another foreign language. It’s a form of linguistic currency that enables international communication, relationships, learning and fun. I find myself wondering what the impact will be over, say, 30 years of so many young people 'rubbing shoulders' with international English in this way. I won’t be around then to know the answer to the question, but I suspect that German, currently with 16 different ways to say, for instance, the English word ‘the’, will become simplified in common usage, so that speakers will start to use just one form of definite article in their own language too. We may also see conventions in other increasingly-international languages, such as Mandarin Chinese, influencing how other languages are used. What do you think? ‘I know you believe you understand what you think I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.’ (Alan Greenspan) Clarity. Simple in principle, not always easy in practice. Paradoxically, a significant challenge to communication is human language. Words intended to build a bridge can so easily create a barrier. We may use the same words but mean something different things by them or use different words to mean the same thing – and very often without realising it. Linguists explain that words are connotative as well as denotive. This implies that their meaning, the associations they hold and the feelings they may evoke can shift markedly depending on context, culture, tone and relationship. We may say something in irony. We may tell a joke with a straight face. We may make a harsh-sounding comment with a glint in our eye. We may make subtle gestures that fill in the gaps in verbal conversation. According to Transactional Analysis, we may make a statement at one level with an intention and implied meaning that’s completely different to the literal. These nuances challenge the limits of neuroscience and artificial intelligence. As social construction expert Kenneth Gergen asserts, ‘Neurobiology can tell us a lot about a blink, but nothing about a wink.’ I facilitated an astute cross-cultural group of women last week who practised skills of curiosity and inquiry. Instead of responding immediately to what they thought another person had said or meant – for example, by a statement, phrase or word – they would test their own assumptions by actively exploring that person’s intended message and meaning. It created a dynamic of interpretation based on dialogue, in contrast to an instinctive reaction to words at face value. It took time, patience, and a commitment to hear and understand. Conversations became richer and relationships grew deeper. It's trickier in online conversations. We can find ourselves subconsciously searching hard for non-verbal cues we would ordinarily pick up when together in the same physical room – yet all we can see is head and shoulders in a 2-dimensional screen frame. This is one of the probable contributors to Zoom fatigue. If you have seen the film ‘Thirteen Days’ (2000) based on the Cuban missile crisis, it’s an extreme opposite example of trying to decode hidden messages and intentions based purely only observation of another party’s actions. It’s Chris Argyris’ Ladder of Inference on steroids. What approaches, tools and techniques do you use to ensure clear communication? (See also: Crossed Wires) |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed