Executive Coaching in a Cross-Cultural Context

Abstract

Many executive coaches today find themselves working with leaders from a variety of cultural backgrounds, as well as coaching leaders who work with culturally diverse teams. It is therefore increasingly important that coaches understand the role of culture in their work. This article begins with an overview of several ways that culture plays a role in coaching, including an exploration of how assumptions about culture can positively or negatively impact a coach's approach and their ultimate success with a given individual. A second section provides three general principles for coaching across cultures, emphasizing the importance of using cross-cultural knowledge as a way to customize coaching to each person. The third section focuses on five essential conditions for learning--insight, motivating, capabilities, real-world practice, and accountability--and how cultural differences can influence various steps in the coaching process. A variety of examples for each condition highlight specific tools and techniques that coaches can use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Executive Coaching in a Cross-Cultural Context
David B. Peterson Personnel Decisions International
Many executive coaches today find themselves work-
ing with leaders from a variety of cultural back-
grounds, as well as coaching leaders who work with
culturally diverse teams. It is therefore increasingly
important that coaches understand the role of culture
in their work. This article begins with an overview of
several ways that culture plays a role in coaching,
including an exploration of how assumptions about
culture can positively or negatively impact a coach’s
approach and their ultimate success with a given
individual. A second section provides three general
principles for coaching across cultures, emphasizing
the importance of using cross-cultural knowledge as
a way to customize coaching to each person. The
third section focuses on five essential conditions for
learning—insight, motivating, capabilities, real-
world practice, and accountability—and how cul-
tural differences can influence various steps in the
coaching process. A variety of examples for each
condition highlight specific tools and techniques that
coaches can use.
Keywords: leadership development, executive
coaching, cross-cultural, learning, individual
differences
In August 2006, during the same period in
which I was writing this article, I found my-
self teaching a week-long coaching workshop
to a multicultural group of consultants in
Shanghai. I decided to use that session to test
a number of ideas my colleague Mary Dee
Hicks and I had developed over the previous
decade in our consulting and coaching with
clients from 20 countries around the globe.
Cultural differences were apparent from the
very beginning of the class, when everyone
introduced himself or herself. The first person
to speak was the sole American in the group,
a graduate student who had lived in Shanghai
for years and spoke Mandarin fluently. The
next to speak were the Australians. Then, the
Chinese participants, two from Hong Kong
and three from Shanghai, introduced them-
selves, followed by an individual from Sin-
gapore. The two participants from Tokyo
waited until the very end.
It was in that context of culturally stereo-
typic behavior— outspoken Americans and
Australians, reserved and respectful Japa-
nese—that I was about to make the provoc-
ative statement that “culture is irrelevant in
coaching.”
1
Although I do not intend that
claim to be taken literally, I wish to convey
the point that culture is a social- or group-
level phenomenon, and coaching occurs at
the level of the individual. The coach’s chal-
lenge is to get to know the person they are
working with, regardless of whether that per-
son was shaped by culture, social status, fam-
ily background, life experiences, education,
profession, personality, or other factors. Cer-
tainly culture may be a potent force in shap-
ing people’s identity and behavior, but it is an
This article is adapted from a presentation in
the symposium Coaching and Consulting in
Multi-Cultural Contexts at the annual meeting
of the California Psychological Association, San
Francisco, March 26, 2006.
My thanks to Alexis Shoemate, Marc Sokol,
and Elyse Sutherland for their thoughtful com-
ments on this article.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to David B. Peterson, Per-
sonnel Decisions International, 2473 Diamond
Street, San Francisco, CA 94131. E-mail:
david.peterson@personneldecisions.com
1
All of the participants in this workshop spoke
English. Although language and culture are inter-
twined, this article does not delve into the issue of
language differences in coaching. Suffice it to say
that coaching works best when the coach and partic-
ipant are fluent enough in a common language to
discuss nuances of motivation, meaning, and behav-
ior. Although even extreme differences in culture do
not preclude effective coaching, lacking fluency in a
common language is a formidable barrier.
Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association and the Society of Consulting Psychology, 1065-9293/07/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/1065-9293.59.4.261
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 59, No. 4, 261–271
261

unpredictable and unreliable factor in deter-
mining the character, values, or behavior of
any particular individual. Regardless of cul-
tural norms, a given individual from Ger-
many, Mexico, or Japan might be punctual or
chronically late, outspoken or reserved, me-
thodical or disorganized. Because coaches
work one-on-one, they can discover and work
with each person as a unique human being
rather than forming opinions based on gener-
alizations and stereotypes about the person’s
cultural background. Therefore, one of the
purposes of this article is to help make sure
that one’s assumptions about culture do not
interfere with coaching an individual. Please
note that this position should in no way be
perceived as minimizing the importance of
awareness, sensitivity, and respect for cul-
tural differences.
A second purpose, which may appear
almost contradictory at first blush, is to
show how an understanding of culture and
cultural differences can actually deepen the
quality of coaching. The broader a coach’s
understanding of culture, the better they are
able to identify important dimensions of
human behavior and explore their meaning.
The deeper a coach’s insights into how
culture has shaped their own beliefs and
values, the more sensitive they can be to
how their assumptions shape their reactions
and advice to the people they coach.
This article is organized into three sec-
tions: a discussion of the role of culture in
coaching, three guidelines for coaching
across cultures, and a summary of insights
into how cultural differences may influence
the coaching process as well as the coach’s
choice of specific techniques to use.
The Role of Culture
Hypothesis 1: Culture doesn’t tell you
much about an individual
It is clear that different leadership styles
are preferred in different cultures (Hofs-
tede, 1991, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Trompenaars &
Hampden-Turner, 2004). It is also clear
that organizations have different cultures
and their own preferred leadership styles
(Schein, 1992). And yet it is evident to
anyone who has worked or consulted inside
an organization that some individuals do
not fit the dominant cultural style of their
country or their organization, yet are still
successful. So whereas an understanding of
a culture may tell you a lot about a given
group, it does not necessarily tell you much
about any given individual. An Indian ex-
ecutive from a large multinational organi-
zation articulated a similar philosophy:
“The more I travel and work in other coun-
tries—and I’ve lived in India, Japan, Eu-
rope, and the U.S.—the more I conclude
that culture is less of a factor than people
believe. There are two big traps that people
fall into when dealing with people from
other cultures: First, expecting people to be
like you. Second, expecting people to fit
their cultural stereotype. People are people
everywhere around the world. You have to
treat them like individuals” (A. Gupta, per-
sonal communication, March 11, 2004).
A vivid example of this was evident
during a workshop in Tokyo several years
ago, with an audience comprised of roughly
equal numbers of American, British, and
Japanese human resource executives. As a
group, the Americans were the most vocal,
whereas the Japanese were the least loqua-
cious. However, the individual who most
dominated the session was Japanese.
Granted, single instances are not proof, but
this illustrates the potential value of using
culture to understand group behavior in
contrast to the difficulty in using it to pre-
dict individual behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Between company and
country, the stronger culture
dominates
The stronger a company’s own culture
is, the more likely it will shape employees
behavior. This becomes increasingly true as
262 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

people rise higher in their organization.
Hewlett-Packard, for example, has been
known for years as having a very strong
culture, characterized by the “HP Way.”
Engineers, whether in India, the United
States, or elsewhere, wear their corporate
identity with pride and begin to take on the
corporate values and behaviors. Even peo-
ple who have left the company years ago
often say that they still feel a sense of
connection, even loyalty, to the company.
A contrasting effect, of country culture
dominating organizational culture, may be
observed when ex-pats from companies
with weak cultures “go native;” that is, they
begin to assimilate into the local country
culture.
Hypothesis 3: Senior executives (from
anywhere) tend to become more alike
As globalization increases, business ex-
ecutives find themselves sharing a set of
increasingly similar experiences: the ma-
jority of them speak English, face similar
competitive dynamics in their businesses,
read the same books and periodicals, travel
on the same airlines, stay in the same ho-
tels, and share similar privileged lifestyles
overall as the result of their financial status.
Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan and Renault,
observed a few years ago “as Nissan’s
identity strengthens, the North Americans,
Europeans and Japanese working here are
becoming more alike than they are differ-
ent” (Ghosn, 2002, p. 11). Mellahi (2001)
examined the impact of national culture on
cross-cultural management practices in or-
ganizations in France, the United Kingdom,
India, and several Arab and African coun-
tries. Mellahi’s conclusion was that the var-
ious countries were converging toward a
Western style of leadership, corresponding
to an emerging global business culture.
Even outside of executive ranks, it has
been noted that broad cultural distinctions
are increasingly unreliable in the face of
global communications, travel, and interac-
tions. The expanding interconnectedness of
people and the growing confluence of cul-
tures leads to greater complexity in social
identities and an erosion of traditional cul-
tural distinctions (Hermans & Kempen,
1998).
Hypothesis 4: Culture and personality
vary on similar dimensions
As varied as cultural dimensions may
be, many of them parallel differences in
personality characteristics. A coach who is
familiar with how personality and culture
may vary will be more adept at tuning in to
the unique character of the individual they
are coaching. Consider the following types
of communication patterns, drawn from
Rosinski’s (2003) Cultural Orientations
Framework.
•High Context: Implicit communica-
tion; the meaning of gestures, pos-
ture, voice, and context. Low Con-
text: Explicit communication; clear
and detailed instructions
•Direct: In a conflict or with a tough
message to deliver, get your point
across clearly at the risk of offending
or hurting. Indirect: In a conflict or
with a tough message to deliver, fa-
vor maintaining a cordial relationship
at the risk of misunderstanding
•Affective: Display emotions and
warmth; establishing and maintaining
personal and social connection is
key. Neutral: Stress conciseness, pre-
cision, and detachment when com-
municating
•Formal: Observe strict protocols and
rituals. Informal: Favor familiarity
and spontaneity
Rosinski sets forth these notions as im-
portant dimensions for understanding cul-
tural differences. They are equally useful
for understanding individual styles and
preferences within a given culture. Con-
versely, a personality framework such as
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI;
Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer,
1998) can point coaches toward potential
263Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

differences that are useful in understanding
both individuals and cultures. To recap the
main point of this discussion so far, it is
more important for a coach to have a good
understanding of the ways in which people
may vary and of what is meaningful to the
individuals they are coaching than it is to
determine whether a particular aspect of a
person’s character derives from innate per-
sonality, culture, or life experiences.
Coaching Across Cultures
The following guidelines, summarized
from Hicks and Peterson (1999a), outline
an approach to coaching that focuses on the
uniqueness of the individual being coached,
while showing explicitly how insight into
cultural differences provides a direct bene-
fit to the coaching process.
1. As you build the coaching
partnership, search for hidden layers
Effective coaching, even within a single
culture, requires a high degree of interper-
sonal perceptiveness and sensitivity—
emotional intelligence, if you will. Coach-
ing across cultures magnifies the coach’s
challenge. A good coach recognizes that
people look at the world through different
lenses. A good cross-cultural coach recog-
nizes that sometimes they may not even
know what that lens looks like, and so will
scan for important dimensions that they
may not fully understand or appreciate.
Such a coach assumes there is always more
going on than meets the eye. One of the
best ways a coach can improve their ability
to spot hidden meanings is to become fa-
miliar with the various ways that people
differ, by studying cultural dimensions and
distinctions (e.g., Berry, 2004; Cushner &
Brislin, 1996; Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, &
Nishida, 1996; Hampden-Turner &
Trompenaars, 2000; Hofstede, 1991, 2001;
House et al., 2004; Lewis, 1996; Rosinski,
2003; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2004), as well as individual values, moti-
vations, and personality variables (e.g.,
Aluja & Garcı´a, 2004; Dweck, 1999;
Markus & Kitayama, 1998; McCrae &
Costa, 1997; Paunonen & Jackson, 2000).
As noted by Hicks and Peterson,
Because cultural differences can be quite dis-
tinct and vigorous, [familiarity with diverse]
cultural norms [can] help a coach generate
hypotheses about the person being coached.
Is this person likely to be better motivated by
a collective goal than an individual one?
Might this person prefer authoritative exper-
tise and clear direction from a coach to a
collegial, free-flowing discussion? Should
the coach vault quickly into the task or spend
a significant amount of time getting to know
the person? Will the coach’s preference for
quick, linear decisions be suitable when
working with this person? Testing relevant
hypotheses like these can often help
[coaches] avoid obvious pitfalls. (1999a, p.
297)
2. Personalize the approach
As the coach gains insight into the indi-
vidual’s makeup, they can ask questions to
identify the most effective methods and
approaches for this particular person, inde-
pendent of their culture: What’s the best
way to foster the coaching relationship with
this person? What’s the best way for this
person to learn? What skills, approaches,
and style will be most useful for this person
in their context?
One of the best ways to personalize the
approach is to consult with the individual
directly, by asking questions such as: What
would you like from me as your coach?
How can I be most helpful to you?
In some cultures, such direct and per-
sonal lines of inquiry will not work well.
Singapore, for example, has such a strong
focus on the teacher as expert authority,
that such questions may undermine the
credibility of the coach, who is more likely
to be viewed as a teacher than a facilitator.
Two alternate approaches are recom-
mended. First, a coach can explore the
264 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

same issues by presenting them as assign-
ments rather than as open-ended questions.
For example, in teaching a coaching work-
shop in Singapore, I found it more effective
to instruct participants to prepare a written
assignment describing the three techniques
they would find most beneficial than it was
to ask the comparable open question. Sec-
ond, a coach can ask questions about what
is typical, rather than what the participant
would want, such as: What are the most
common techniques that a coach would use
in this culture? What would other people
find most helpful if they were using a
coach? A coach in these cultures needs to
be able to project a sense of expertise and
authority about the coaching process, even
though they may be learning about the in-
dividual and the culture at the same time.
A cross-cultural coach needs to walk
into every coaching engagement prepared
to learn about new ways to be helpful to the
person, and even prepared to learn new
ways of going about their own learning, so
they can readily adapt to new cultures and
styles.
3. Orchestrate change—in a way best
suited to the individual
Some authors present coaching as a col-
lection of activities, such as gathering and
delivering feedback, writing development
plans, offering advice, and teaching skills
(Kampa-Kokesch & White, 2002). Think-
ing about coaching in this way may lead
coaches working in cross-cultural settings
to ask the wrong questions, such as “How
do I give feedback in this culture?” In con-
trast, some authors, including Peterson and
Hicks (1996) define coaching in broader
terms: “coaching is the process of equip-
ping people with the tools, knowledge, and
opportunities they need to develop them-
selves and become more effective” (p. 14).
Such a definition leads to a different type of
question, such as “what does this person
need in order to become more effective?”
Feedback, advice, or a development plan
may not be the answer (Hicks & Peterson,
1999a).
The Development Pipeline
Thinking about coaching as orchestrat-
ing a process of learning led my colleague
Mary Dee Hicks and me to examine the
necessary and sufficient conditions for
change. We were searching for the active
ingredients of change within the individual,
rather than for a set of activities that the
coach would engage in. Our efforts resulted
in a framework labeled the Development
Pipeline (Hicks & Peterson, 1999b; Peter-
son, 2002, 2006). This framework provides
a picture of five necessary and sufficient
conditions for systematic learning, regard-
less of culture (Hicks & Peterson, 1999a).
Once the underlying needs are determined,
then a personalized and culturally appropri-
ate set of tactics may be sought to address
those needs.
The five conditions are as follows
(Peterson, 2006):
•Insight: The extent to which the per-
son understands what areas need to
be developed in order to be more
effective
•Motivation: The degree to which the
person is willing to invest the time
and energy it takes to develop
•Capabilities: The extent to which the
person has the skills and knowledge
that are needed
•Real-world practice: the extent to
which the person is able to apply
their skills at work
•Accountability: The extent to which
there are internal and external mech-
anisms for paying attention to change
and providing appropriate and mean-
ingful consequences
Using the pipeline as a metaphor (see
Figure 1) highlights that this is a constraint
model (Goldratt & Cox, 1992). That is, the
amount of change a person can make is
constrained by where the pipeline is most
narrow. For example, a person with great
265Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

Insight, Motivation and Capabilities will
not be able to make key changes if they
don’t have opportunities to apply their
skills in Real-World Practice. Another per-
son might attend a workshop to increase
their Capabilities, but unless Motivation is
sufficient (along with the three other con-
ditions), no real change is likely to take
place.
Cultural Differences in the Coaching
Process
The final section of this article examines
various ways in which culture may impact
the choice of coaching tactics and tech-
niques that can best address constraints in
each of the five Development Pipeline con-
ditions.
Insight
In the United States, feedback is com-
monly viewed as such an essential part of
coaching and development that many defi-
nitions of coaching specify feedback as an
integral aspect. In reality, feedback is not
absolutely necessary to effective coaching
and development—it is just one means to
the desired end, which is Insight (Hicks &
Peterson, 1997; Peterson & Hicks, in
press). Hoppe (1998), for example, points
out that 360-degree/multirater feedback is
well-suited to American culture because of
a preference for quantification, measure-
ment, and empirical data, a focus on the
individual, and the presence of a low-
context environment that requires more ex-
plicit communication. He posits that it is
less well-suited for cultures with a prefer-
ence for theory over data (e.g., France, Ger-
many), a preference for relational and met-
aphorical thinking over quantification (e.g.,
Japan, China), or more collectivist or high-
context cultures that provide information
about where people stand through family
relationships (e.g., India), education (e.g.,
France; see also Roussillon, 2002), or tribal
membership (e.g., certain Arab countries).
In some areas, such as Saudi Arabia, feed-
back is likely to be viewed as a personal
criticism or even an attack. In France, in-
tellectual challenge is valued, but feed-
back—which is perceived as a personal
challenge—is less welcome. French culture
is typically more impersonal than Ameri-
can culture, where many people share per-
sonal information readily. Thus the French
may also be less inclined to openly discuss
their own strengths and weaknesses in gen-
eral (Roussillon, 2002).
Self-reflection and self-observation are
other means to gaining insight that might
be more acceptable in some cultures. Con-
fucian approaches to learning (Tweed &
Lehman, 2002) emphasize learning from
role models. Insight can be gained from
observing someone with the desired quali-
ties and comparing oneself to that ideal. In
some cultures, feedback from an outsider is
not common nor is it welcomed. Coaches
can thus expand their repertoire of coach-
ing techniques by considering ways to cul-
tivate insight through asking questions to
promote self-reflection and by encouraging
people to self-monitor and compare their
behavior and results to others.
One of the more interesting anecdotes
about insight concerns Japan, where feed-
back is traditionally seen as overly direct
and inappropriate, given people’s desire to
save face. However, I have heard from sev-
eral Japanese managers that there is at least
one vehicle for providing upward feedback
to people’s managers. It is not uncommon
for managers to go out for an evening of
dining and drinking with employees. Late
in the evening, after a number of drinks
have been consumed, an employee may
Figure 1. The development pipeline.
266 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

occasionally offer very direct negative
feedback to their boss. The next morning,
however, that individual will take it upon
themselves to apologize to their boss for
any inappropriate behaviors: “I may have
had too much to drink last night and per-
haps made comments that I did not intend
and that I certainly did not mean. However,
I cannot remember the details too clearly. If
I gave offense in any way, please accept my
apologies.”
Even in cultures where direct feedback
is not common, it is inevitable that people
in organizations will find a way to express
their feelings to others. Coaches should
search for the culturally acceptable ways
that people create to meet their needs, not
just for sharing feedback, but for gaining
insight (Stone-Romero & Stone, 2002).
Motivation
Individuals are motivated to seek coach-
ing and development for different reasons.
Clients may seek to improve their perfor-
mance because they want more money, au-
tonomy, respect and recognition, power,
control over their lives, variety and change,
life balance, or because they want to pro-
vide for their family. Culture may play a
role in defining which values are more
common and/or socially acceptable. Trian-
dis (2004) summarizes different sets of val-
ues that are common to two broad cultural
categories.
Values that are representative of the
Eastern orientation to collectivism and har-
mony include:
•Group achievement
•Harmony
•Keeping relationships over time
•Being responsive to the needs of oth-
ers; contributing to the well-being of
the family and group
•Being agreeable, friendly, sympa-
thetic
Values that are representative of the
Western orientation to individualism and
control include:
•Personal achievement and advance-
ment
•Dominance
•Autonomy and self-reliance
•Openness to new experiences
•Having fun
I routinely ask my coaching clients what
their primary values and motivations are.
When coaching people from traditional
strong collectivist cultures, such as Japan, it
is not unusual for them to say, “I don’t
know” or “I have no personal motivations.”
Through gentle persistence and asking
other types of questions, such as “What
values do you want to uphold in the work
that you do?” I usually find that people start
talking about maintaining respect and har-
mony, caring for their family, fitting in, and
other values represented in Triandis’s first
list. With even more time, and by making
sure I demonstrate a nonjudgmental, ac-
cepting attitude, many clients start to dis-
close other motivations, which they are less
comfortable sharing publicly. These moti-
vations frequently include items from Tri-
andis’s second group, such as gaining in-
dependence and autonomy.
In an earlier article, Triandis (1996)
pointed out that individuals in collective
cultures give more weight to norms than to
personal attitudes as determinants of be-
havior, whereas people in individualistic
cultures prefer behavior to be guided by
personal attitudes and values. This in itself
may be difficult for coaches of different
orientations: Western coaches may feel that
self-actualization is a condition that every-
one should seek; some coaches even define
their practice as actualizing the person’s
potential to bring out the best in them,
which is a very individualistic perspective.
A similar contrast is evident in what some
have described as the Western focus on
“doing” and the Eastern focus on “being.”
Some traditional Chinese, following the
Confucian example, revere a leader with
high moral character, independent of what
the leader may accomplish through the
267Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

group (Hui & Tan, 1999). Coaches working
cross-culturally need to be especially sen-
sitive to not letting their own preferences
result in negative evaluations of what oth-
ers value.
Another important motivational factor
has to do with varying cultural beliefs
about how much change and development
is even possible. North American culture,
perhaps more than any other, believes that
personal change and growth are almost un-
limited. The business culture of the United
States is frequently touted as highly toler-
ant of active experimentation, trial and er-
ror, uncertainty, risk, and failure. An Amer-
ican’s belief that they are in charge of their
own destiny is a foreign idea to much of the
world. For example, many members of
Eastern and Middle-Eastern cultures be-
lieve in harmony and acceptance one’s cir-
cumstances. People in China, as another
example, are more likely to attribute suc-
cess to hard work than to abilities. There-
fore, working to improve abilities through
coaching may be a rather indirect way to
achieve success compared to simply work-
ing harder and longer.
Capabilities
Research shows that certain leadership
attributes, such as charisma, reliability and
trustworthiness, and basic management
competence in communications, problem-
solving, and so forth, are important in all
cultures (House et al., 2004). Some dimen-
sions of leadership effectiveness, such as
uncertainty avoidance, gender egalitarian-
ism, assertiveness, collectivism, show sig-
nificant variation around the world (House
et al., 2004). So at least some of the capa-
bilities that leaders value and seek to de-
velop will vary across cultures as well.
Some of these (e.g., gender egalitarianism)
may relate to the values that the coach and
client hold as well, creating potential con-
flicts for some.
In addition to the content of the coach-
ing and learning, preferences for the pro-
cess of learning also vary (Peterson, 2004).
Learning about business and management
in India is typically very hands on; in
France, the education system focuses on
identifying the best and brightest and send-
ing them to schools based on intellect. For
more detailed information, Derr, Roussil-
lon, and Bournois’s (2002) book provides
fascinating overviews of leadership devel-
opment in various countries.
Tweed and Lehman (2002) contrast So-
cratic and Confucian approaches to learn-
ing. From their perspective, the Socratic or
Western individualistic tradition holds that
knowledge resides within the learner, so
learners can progress without a guide
through self-teaching, active trial and error,
and learning from experience. This blends
easily with the common coaching philoso-
phy that the learner has the answer within
them. The Confucian or Eastern collectivist
tradition suggests that learners need a com-
petent teacher to guide them.
To highlight the original point of this
article about connecting to the individual
regardless of culture, here is a quote from a
Japanese consultant who had begun prac-
ticing coaching several years earlier: “Be-
fore I learned about coaching, I didn’t like
education. It’s about knowing the right an-
swer. I like the freedom of coaching. And
the learning never ends. When you know
the facts, you’re done. With coaching, ev-
ery time you visit it, you can go deeper” (K.
Yoshitake, personal communication, Feb-
ruary 10, 2004). This consultant had been
raised in a traditional Japanese educational
environment. However, knowing only his
culture and upbringing would provide a
misleading clue as to his deeper values and
motivations.
Real-World Practice
As noted earlier, certain cultures (e.g.,
North American) may place a high value on
action and implementation and be more
comfortable with entrepreneurial risk-
taking and failure. What we might call an
268 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

inductive learning style— do something,
observe what happens, assess what you’ve
learned— could be very comfortable for in-
dividuals adapted to that type of culture.
Given that bias, a fairly common re-
sponse to management theory among ac-
tion-oriented managers in the United
States is, “Skip the theory, just tell me
what works.” I experienced a stark con-
trast to this the first time I presented the
Development Pipeline to an audience of
executives in Paris. The very first ques-
tion, from the back of the room, was,
“Obviously this model works, but what’s
your theory?” I was not at all prepared for
such a question, due to my own cultural
blinders at the time, and almost laughed.
I assumed the question came from a
quirky character who was trying to make
a humorous point. Only slowly did it
dawn on me that my intellectual rigor was
being called into question, and that the-
ory and academic debate were going to
dominate the rest of the session.
If we label the French approach deduc-
tive learning, then we may compare and
contrast the two styles. Deductive learning
begins with reflection on relevant theory
and concepts to determine what type of
action (if any) is appropriate. Coaching cli-
ents with this style ask many questions in
an attempt to understand what is being rec-
ommended and why. They want to analyze
alternatives and debate the merits of vari-
ous approaches. At it’s worst, a deductive
learning style allows theory and discussion
to become ends in themselves, and little
action is taken. Inductive learning typically
starts with doing something and then trying
to figure out the relevant lesson or principle
afterward. It has the advantage of yielding
concrete and pragmatic ideas about what to
do. At its worst, however, reflection may be
lost in a cycle of constant doing, yielding
simplistic insights with limited applicabil-
ity that fail to generate a sufficiently so-
phisticated model of reality.
Accountability
In contrast to the four other Develop-
ment Pipeline conditions, I have found few
indications of cross-cultural variability in
accountability, although I have considered
hypotheses, such as that in collectivist cul-
tures, accountability is provided by a sense
of social obligation whereas in individual-
istic cultures accountability will more often
come from an individual’s personal com-
mitment to a goal.
A similar hypothesis, from the field of
accounting, is proposed by Velayutham and
Perera (2004), who connect collectivist,
high power-distance, and high uncertainty-
avoidance cultures to an emotion of shame,
and connect cultures with the opposing
characteristics to the emotion of guilt. Their
view is that shame-based cultures are less
likely to share information and thus suffer
from lower levels of personal accountabil-
ity, and thus may need to place greater
emphasis on external sources of account-
ability. Guilt-based cultures are more likely
to instill a sense of accountability in the
individual.
Communication styles in high-context
and low-context cultures (Hall, 1983) may
have a significant impact on Accountabil-
ity, as well as other conditions, especially
Insight. Low-context cultures, such as the
United States and Germany, tend to empha-
size communications based on the content
of the message, placing value on clear, ex-
plicit messages and contracts. Thus expec-
tations for accountability are more likely to
be explicit. High-context cultures, such as
Japan, Mexico, and France, base commu-
nications on roles and relationships, em-
phasizing trust and respect. Messages are
often implicit, with weight placed on non-
verbals and subtle cues. Here, it is likely
that accountability will be assumed, given
the nature of the coaching relationship. To
some extent, explicit contracts may even be
perceived as insulting to the person.
269Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

Finally, as with the other conditions, an
effective coach will partner with their client
to survey relevant paths, both in the person
and in their environment, for enhancing
accountability, and find one or more meth-
ods that are suited to the individual.
The Coaching Relationship
In conclusion, I would like to point out
that I have not addressed one of the most
critical aspects of coaching across cultures
(Hicks & Peterson, 1999a). A relationship
of trust and understanding is an essential
prerequisite of effective coaching (Peter-
son, 2006; Peterson & Hicks, 1996). Each
client the coach works with has their own
set of expectations and requirements for
what goes into building that relationship,
and cultural differences are only likely to
accentuate the challenge. The greater the
coach’s knowledge of cultural differences,
the more likely the coach will anticipate
and handle the process smoothly. However,
regardless of the amount of cultural knowl-
edge a coach has, the best coaches will
always be those who coach with an open
attitude of curiosity and interest, who meet
people where they are, who accept them for
what they are, and who project a genuine
desire to be helpful to each person on their
own terms.
References
Aluja, A., & Garcı´a, L. F. (2004). Relationships
between Big Five personality factors and
values. Social Behavior and Personality, 32,
619 – 625.
Berry, J. W. (2004). Fundamental psychological
processes in intercultural relations. In D.
Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett
(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural
interactions: A practical guide (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Derr, C. B., Roussillon, S., & Bournois, F.
(Eds.). (2002). Cross-cultural approaches to
leadership development. Westport, CT: Quo-
rum Books.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in
motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Ghosn, C. (2002). Saving the business without
losing the company. Harvard Business Re-
view, January, 3–11.
Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1992). The goal: A
process of ongoing improvement (2nd rev.
ed.). Great Barrington, MA: North River
Press.
Gudykunst, W., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T.
(Eds.). (1996). Communications in personal
relationships across cultures. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life: The other
dimension of time. New York: Anchor.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F.
(2000). Building cross-cultural competence:
How to create wealth from conflicting val-
ues. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. G. J. (1998).
Moving cultures: The perilous problems of
cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society.
American Psychologist, 53, 1111–1120.
Hicks, M. D., & Peterson, D. B. (1997). Just
enough to be dangerous: The rest of what
you need to know about development. Con-
sulting Psychology Journal, 49, 171–193.
Hicks, M. D., & Peterson, D. B. (1999a). Lead-
ers coaching across borders. In W. H. Mob-
ley, M. J. Gessner, & V. J. Arnold (Eds.),
Advances in global leadership (Vol. 1, pp.
295–314). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Hicks, M. D., & Peterson, D. B. (1999b). The
Development Pipeline: How people really
learn. Knowledge Management Review, 9,
30 –33.
Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organiza-
tions: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s conse-
quences: Comparing values, behaviors, in-
stitutions, and organizations across nations
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoppe, M. H. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in
leadership development. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The
Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development. San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorf-
man, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE
study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hui, C. H., & Tan, G. C. (1999). The moral
component of effective leadership: The Chi-
nese case. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner,
270 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007

& V. Arnold, (Eds.), Advances in global
leadership (Vol. 1). Stamford, CT: JAI
Press.
Kampa-Kokesch, S., & White, R. P. (2002). The
effectiveness of executive coaching: What
we know from the literature and experience
and where we should go from here. In R. L.
Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
consulting psychology. San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass.
Lewis, R. D. (1996). When cultures collide:
Managing successfully across cultures. Lon-
don: Nicholas Brealey.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The
cultural psychology of personality. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63– 87.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Person-
ality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509 –516.
Mellahi, K. (2001). Differences and similarities
in future managerial values: A five cultures
comparative study. Cross Cultural Manage-
ment, 8, 45–58.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L.,
& Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A
guide to the development and use of the
Myers Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.).
Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.
Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What
is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of
Personality, 68, 821– 835.
Peterson, D. B. (2002). Management develop-
ment: Coaching and mentoring programs. In
K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, implementing,
and managing effective training and devel-
opment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, D. B. (2004, April). Global perspec-
tives on leadership development. Preconfer-
ence workshop presented at the annual con-
ference of the Society for Industrial and Or-
ganizational Psychology, Chicago.
Peterson, D. B. (2006). People are complex and
the world is messy: A behavior-based ap-
proach to executive coaching. In D. R. Sto-
ber & A. M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-based
coaching handbook: Putting best practices
to work for your clients (pp. 51–76). Hobo-
ken, NJ: Wiley.
Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1996). Leader
as coach: Strategies for coaching and devel-
oping others. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel
Decisions International.
Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (in press).
Development FIRST: Strategies for self-
development (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN:
Personnel Decisions International.
Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching across cultures:
New tools for leveraging national, corpo-
rate, and professional differences. London:
Nicholas Brealey.
Roussillon, S. (2002). Attaining leadership po-
sitions in France. In C. B. Derr, S. Roussil-
lon, & F. Bournois (Eds.), Cross-cultural
approaches to leadership development.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture
and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (2002).
Cross-cultural differences in responses to
feedback: Implications for individual, group,
and organizational effectiveness. Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Man-
agement, 21, 275–333.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The measurement of
cultural syndromes. American Psycholo-
gist, 51, 407– 415.
Triandis, H. C. (2004). Foreword. In D. Landis,
J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Hand-
book of intercultural training (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C.
(2004). Managing people across cultures.
Oxford: Capstone.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learn-
ing considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 57, 89 –99.
Velayutham, S., & Perera, M. H. B. (2004). The
influence of emotions and culture on ac-
countability and governance. Corporate
Governance, 4, 52– 64.
271Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
December 2007