 ‘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.  ‘Christianism: A crude political ideology and the triumph of empty symbolism.’ (Ben Ryan)
The UK has spent decades sleepwalking toward secularism, where faith has been driven relentlessly into the personal-private sphere. Now we're waking up to something very different. A muscular version of Christianity is re-emerging, not as a spiritual faith but as a political identity. It’s a re‑branding of national belonging where being 'British' feels increasingly identified with being ‘Christian’. I'm not talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ or about spiritual renewal here. I am talking about identity politics. It’s about casting Christianity as a default badge of belonging and using that badge to redraw the boundaries of who counts as ‘us’ vs ‘them’. Anxiety and frustration are fuelling that shift in the face of mass migration, cultural disruption and a fear that who ‘we’ are is slipping away. ‘Christian’ is being used increasingly as a political brand. Once any religion becomes a marker of national or cultural identity, it becomes a de facto test of belonging. Tests always leave people, the ‘others’, outside. It chips away at the humility and compassion that are, for followers of Jesus, core to their lives. Religion becomes less about conscience or community and more about raw power. For Christians who believe authentic faith should question power, who see gospel values as both universal and counter‑cultural, the appropriation of Christianity into nationalism feels like a dangerous distortion. Jesus said, ‘Love your enemies’ (which suggests there are those we may rightly regard as enemies). True faith lays in reaching out in love – not in alienation or conquest.  ‘Reflexivity is our own self-reflection in the meaning-making process.’ (Margaret Kovach) It’s a bit like looking in a mirror. When I look at any situation and myself in relation to it (e.g. who or what I’m focusing on (and not); how I’m feeling; the stance I’m taking), what could it reveal about me?’ If I grow in awareness by responding honestly to such questions, it could enable me to grow in authenticity and open up fresh insights and ideas for action. Example: ‘My team colleague is under-performing and I’m frustrated with her laziness. It annoys me that I have to do extra work to make sure we don’t miss deadlines.’ On the face of it, it sounds like a simple description of my colleague’s behaviour and impact. Yet what reflexive insights could this reveal about me (and, perhaps, my broader cultural environment too)? Let's think. It could, for instance, say something implicitly about my own beliefs; assumptions; values; filters; expectations; hopes; preferences; fears; norms or needs. (I could, critically, substitute ‘own’ with ‘cultural’ in that list – it’s about me, but it’s not only about me.) By coaching a person to work reflexively in this way, they can choose afresh how to respond.  ‘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?’  ‘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.  ‘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.  ‘Listening is the gateway to understanding.’ (David Spangler) I met with leaders at a UK charity yesterday who were thinking through how to create a focused and appropriately-boundaried People & Culture strategy for their organisation as they move forward. I was wearing my organisation development (OD) consultancy hat for the day. The first think that struck me is that they had already being doing lots of People & Culture related things until now. The question was how to create something less reactive and more intentional. As we talked through some of their hopes, aspirations, concerns and challenges in free-flow conversation, a simple framework emerged into my awareness that I thought, perhaps, could provide the foundation for a People & Culture theory of change or strategy map. If rested on 3 main areas: talent, thrive and transform – a convenient alliteration that also reflected their own values and language. We tested this idea and found it worked well as a conceptual map. While the leaders were populating the map with key conditions that would support fulfilment in each area and provide a basis for their own prioritising and action-planning, I noticed how praying at the start of the workshop had helped me hold the day and our work more lightly than tightly, listening for spiritual discernment rather than hard over-thinking. The 3 x Ts felt like a revelation, a realisation, and that made such difference. Listening to God is a lesson in trust.  ‘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. |
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