 ‘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.
15 Comments
 ‘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.  ‘Learn your theories as well as you can, but put them aside when you touch the miracle of the living soul.’ (Carl Jung) It’s not every day that one has opportunity to lead a coach training workshop for participants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe all in the same online room at the same time. I’m greatly indebted to insightful contributions from group members as we looked at how to navigate cross-cultural dynamics in coaching conversations. We spent some time exploring, critiquing and adapting a conventional Western coaching model, with all its embedded cultural assumptions, to people and relationships in very different global contexts. I noticed that finding a way to navigate a group conversation about such complex issues was, in itself, a cross-cultural experience in real time. I was particularly interested, for my own development too, in how to offer challenge in collectivistic cultures where group harmony, cohesion and interdependence are valued highly and indirect communication is the norm. A direct challenge could be perceived as disruptive to relationship and, therefore, experienced as blunt, threatening or rude. The wisdom that emerged from today’s participants began to take shape in something like the following form (below) – although I’m aware that I’m imposing a structure on a conversation and ideas that felt more fluid and emergent at the time. It offers a window of insight, shared by people with far greater cultural-lived experience than my own:
 ‘Who looks outside dreams; who looks inside awakes.’ (Carl Jung) I’m running a foundation-level coaching programme for participants from Burundi, DRC, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Nepal, Philippines, Rwanda and the UK this week. I find the diverse cultural insights and approaches fascinating. The programme is based on John Whitmore’s GROW model because that’s client organisation’s model of choice. At a previous workshop, we looked at how we might adapt GROW to different cultural contexts, particularly those with a more collectivist than individualist orientation. This week we will be looking at how to go deeper at each stage of GROW by asking 2nd level (follow-up) questions. 2nd level questions are challenging and call for trust. Here are some examples of what we might think of as 1st level (often surface-level, or transactional) and 2nd level (often deeper level, or transformational) questions at each stage of the GROW process. The 2nd level questions invite the coachee to build on or delve deeper into their own responses to the 1st level questions – if they want to: Goal. 1st level: ‘What do you want to achieve?’ 2nd level: ‘Why’s that outcome so important to you?’ or ‘What goal might really stretch or scare you?’ Realities. 1st level: ‘What’s holding you back?’ 2nd level: ‘What's your own contribution to what you're experiencing?’ or ‘What truth might another see that you don’t see?’ Options. 1st level: ‘What are your options?’ 2nd level: ‘What (limiting) assumptions are you making?’ or ‘What options have you ruled out because they feel too risky?’ Will. 1st level: ‘What will you do?’ 2nd level: ‘What action will prove you’re serious about doing this?’ ‘If you don’t do it, what will you be telling yourself a month from now?’ I had a valuable conversation with a close friend in Germany this week about how to work with 2nd level questions in such a variety of cultural contexts. He proposed writing a question down; inviting participants to reflect on, ‘How would you pose this question in your culture?’ and, if they wouldn't ask this question, ‘What might you ask instead?’  ‘A garden’s beauty never lies in one flower.’ (Matshona Dhliwayo) I had a fascinating experience yesterday, leading a foundational coach training workshop for insightful and enthusiastic participants from countries as diverse as Burundi, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Nepal, Philippines, Rwanda and the UK. I was struck by the great range and depth of awareness and wisdom in the group, particularly when it came to exploring and understanding dynamics that can and do influence coaching practice in very different cultures, contexts and relationships. It left me feeling humbled, inspired and motivated to continue learning from the very different lived experiences, insights and ideas of others. What a privilege to spend time with such amazing people. Thank you, God – and to all who help me learn.  ‘Research is seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought.’ (Albert Szent-Györgyi) Today’s focus group with participants from Colombia, England, Iran and Scotland was an intriguing experience. They are all employed as research professionals at a university and their expertise was evidenced as much by the questions they asked as the insights they shared. As facilitator, I spent much of the time listening to discern underlying themes as they spoke together in free-flow around issues and experiences that matter to them. I was aware of both tuning in to hear and understand, and tuning out to maintain an independent perspective. One of the participants reflected astutely from the outset that the order in which discussion questions had been framed mirrored symbolically something of their experience. The first question was focused on organisational issues, the second on cross-departmental and the third on individual. This represented, for them, a perceived hierarchy of importance in the culture of the university itself – with organisational agendas at the top of the pyramid and individual interests at the bottom. It was a profound insight that proved pivotal to the conversation. In debrief afterwards in a café with the client, we reflected on how best to present the outputs of the focus group to organisational decision-makers. If it’s true that leaders are focused first and foremost on the needs of the institution, whereas the researchers were primarily concerned with issues affecting individuals, we will aim to demonstrate how addressing the researchers’ recommendations would benefit the institution, whilst also hold up an observation of the perceived need to do so, as a mirror to raise awareness of implicit cultural values.  ‘Taken out of context, I must seem so strange.’ (Ani Difranco) It’s an awareness of the context (in Gestalt psychology, the backdrop or ground) that often enables us to make sense of and navigate the specific issue (the focus or figure) in front of us. This principle came in useful today whilst facilitating a focus group of university research and teaching professionals in Scotland with cultural backgrounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Greece, Turkey and the UK. They knew their context well and were able to draw on insights from personal experience. This created the conditions for a rich conversation and diverse ideas to emerge. There were benefits, too, to my involvement as an independent facilitator. In that role, I was external to their system – intentionally out-of-context if you like – and that helped me to avoid making some of the same assumptions, and to ask questions from a fresh place or guide the group’s gaze towards unexplored places. I was detached and unaffected by the issues they wanted to discuss and that helped me to stay focused: to help them discern their wood from their trees. So, out-of-context within a context can be an advantage; as can contextual knowledge and understanding.  ‘We don’t see things as they are – we see them as we are.’ (Anaïs Nin) Social constructionism is a way looking at how we construe reality to help us make sense of it. The ‘we’ is important here because it’s not just what I do but what we do, what others around us do and what others before us have done. If I haven’t lost you already, imagine seeing a person hand someone else a bunch of flowers. Neuroscience can shed little or no light on understanding this event. That’s because the meaning of giving someone flowers is socially-constructed – that is, it’s something we attribute to the act within a specific culture and context, rather than something that is inherent to the act per se. In my own UK culture, giving a person flowers could mean, for instance: a gesture of romantic love; or of thanks and appreciation; or to celebrate a special occasion; or a token of apology; or a wish for someone who is sick that they’ll get well soon; or a sign of empathy if someone has died. In some cultures or contexts, it could signify wealth (e.g. ‘I have enough money to buy you to a gift’) or imply a request for a response (e.g. ‘Will you marry me?’). Types, colours and numbers of flowers convey different meanings in different cultures too. So, social constructionism: a way of making sense of human sense-making.  'Is coaching too dominated by a Western cultural paradigm? What could we do to make coaching more sensitive and appropriate to different cultures?' Nick Wright (UK) and Dr Smita Singh (India) offer their own reflections here: I (Nick) first began to ask myself these questions when I was invited to coach three women from different countries in South East Asia: Singapore, Myanmar and Indonesia. I noticed that, when I asked them questions that implied personal autonomy in decision-making, they often looked at me quizzically as if there were something strange in the questions. I was puzzled and didn’t understand what this meant until, later, when coaching a woman from the Philippines, she explained that the questions didn’t really make sense in their cultural contexts, where individual decisions are often subject to wider family and community decisions. She helped me to understand that personal autonomy is a Western cultural construct and assumption – a key difference between individual and collective cultures. This was a profound revelation to me. Since then, I’ve noticed other differences too when coaching cross-culturally with people in and from different parts of the world. The next most striking and recurring theme has been that of perceived authority in a relationship, and the implications of cultural authority in wider systems. In Western cultures like the UK, we tend to frame the coaching relationship as essentially egalitarian and, as coaches, we typically relate to those we are coaching with that stance. I’ve noticed through experience, however, that this approach can sometimes create discomfort, awkwardness or confusion when working with people from cultures in which higher power-distance relationships are the norm. I’ve learned, for instance, to accept that people in the Philippines will call me ‘Sir Nick’ – a sign of respect – in spite of how alien that feels for me. A third area, and the one I still struggle to get right, is direct (low context) vs indirect (high context) communication. Western coaches are often trained to ask short, incisive questions and to feed back concise, challenging reflections or responses. In some cultures, however, this style of relating can come across as blunt, disrespectful or rude. As I continue to think through and practice greater cross-cultural curiosity, awareness and competence in these areas, therefore, I’m learning to reframe, e.g. ‘What do you want to achieve?’ as, say, ‘What goals are important to you and the people who matter most in your life?’; ‘We are equals in this process’ as, ‘I’m here to support you in a way that best aligns with your values and traditions’; ‘What is holding you back?’ as, ‘What challenges do we need to address together as we move forward?’ I (Smita) agree that, as coaches, a contextual understanding is absolutely essential. Without it, it’s possible that we may fall prey to our default settings, or to our routine preferences in dealing with coachees. When working cross-culturally, I find it’s a good idea to do some homework beforehand, in exactly the way that consultants do before they engage in the first meeting with a client. This may give us some insight and understanding of cultural dimensions like those Nick has mentioned above, such as power distance and/or individuality versus collectivism. If we discover and use metaphors from the client’s culture or reflect the metaphors a client uses in their own language, it can also accelerate the relational rapport-, credibility- and trust-building processes. This will make it easier for the coach and client to work together smoothly. As an illustration, I noticed that, when I was writing my book on ‘Accelerated Action Learning’ with Nick and other UK specialists as contributors, I had to adopt a very straight forward and, what felt to me like formal, way of communicating. By contrast, when I talked with coaches in India or other Asian countries it was very different. Asian coaches preferred rapport-building and general chatting before starting with the coaching conversation itself. There are some similarities in the time management of coaching conversations too. Western coaches and coachees are often and ordinarily monochronic in their approach, for example with strict scheduling and punctuality as important values and behaviours whereas, by contract, coaches and coachees in and from Eastern cultures are typically polychronic in their approach, for example viewing interpersonal relationship and being present in the moment as important. At the bottom line, any winning coaching conversation will be client-centric. I find that, if we start from an appreciation of the coachee’s own cultural frame of reference, we will often achieve better outcomes. Social media and Artificial Intelligence (AI) can provide useful research resources in this area. I’ve created my own simple ‘DFS’ framework that proves useful when working with coachees. D is for Dive into the coachee’s culture and background before the first conversation; F is for Float with that insight and information when you meet, greet and work with the client; S is for Swim to help the client navigate through the labyrinth of their own thoughts, feelings and experiences as swiftly and effectively as possible. In my experience, this culturally-sensitive approach can build and sustain great relationships and outcomes. What do you think? We’d love to hear about your experiences, insights and ideas of working cross-culturally too! (Dr Smita Singh is a faculty member at IMT Nagpur Business School in India and is also a management consultant, coach and author.) [See also: Artificial coaching; Coaching and the poor]  ‘Wealth and individualism are positively correlated at both the individual and the national level.’ (Yuji Ogihara) I met with a group of young students in Germany this week to compare and contrast social trends with the UK. We focused initially on the ways in which our respective households have changed, for example, in terms of size and structure. In the 1950s, for instance, households in Germany and the UK were typically larger and multigenerational. Today, in these and other European countries, households are smaller with a significant rise in the proportion of people who live alone. I invited the students to reflect on what might lay behind these changes and I was astonished by the sophistication of the conversation that flowed between them – a testimony to the Montessori school’s teachers and distinctive pedagogical approach. I suggested that, based on what I have learned in Asia and Africa, household size is often influenced by relative poverty and wealth. It’s as if the more money we have, the less we need to depend on each other: at least financially. Rudo Kwaramba explains: ‘In wealthy countries, if you can’t earn an income or if you lose your job, your government provides you with financial support; if you become injured or unwell, your health system or insurance covers you. In poorer countries, people can only look to each other for this support.’ This interdependency phenomenon is a deep cultural driver behind building and sustaining close relationships within extended families, and between families and wider communities. Broader cultural considerations apart, as the wealthy get richer, not only do we tend to become more individual-orientated but our quality-of life-expectations grow too. Many people in affluent societies now believe they can’t afford to have children because they have to work so hard to earn enough money to gain or sustain the lifestyle they aspire to. As a consequence, we face a ticking time bomb of rapidly-ageing populations with fewer young people to support and replace them. It's time for a rethink. |
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